1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7757 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7757

Oral Questions

New prison on Oakalla site. Mr. Lorimer –– 7757

Storage of Kinsella furniture. Mr. Nicolson –– 7757

Housing foreclosures. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7757

Mr. Barrett

Workers' Compensation Board surcharges. Ms Sanford –– 7758

McKim Advertising Ltd. Mrs. Dailly –– 7758

Forestry jobs for Zeballos residents. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7759

Forest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 42). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7759

Mr. King –– 7759

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7761

Health Cost Stabilization Act (Bill 12). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7761

Mr. Cocke –– 7761

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7762

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates.

On vote 5: minister's office –– 7762

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Mussallem

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PASSARELL: I have two relatives

visiting us today: Frank and Gail Quesnelle from Kelowna. They're in

Victoria for their honeymoon. On behalf of the first minister and

myself I ask the House to pay them a warm welcome.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today is a group of students from

Abbotsford Christian Secondary school. They're accompanied by their

teacher Mr. Contant. Would the House please welcome these students and

their teacher.

MR. LORIMER: I ask the assembly to join me in welcoming two visitors from Burnaby: Lynne Egan and Ray Agnew.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, by way of introducing a new member to the press gallery, I

would like to inform the House that the grand old man of the press

gallery, Jim Hume, and his wife Candide had a baby boy this last

weekend. I'm sure all members will welcome the new member to the press

gallery.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) who is just entering, turned 60 last weekend. I trust all

members will make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TRAFFIC VICTIMS INDEMNITY FUND REPEAL ACT

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

a bill intituled Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act.

Bill

47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NEW PRISON ON OAKALLA SITE

MR. LORIMER:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Some months ago the

Attorney-General announced that a new maximum-security prison will be

constructed on the Oakalla site. Has the minister now decided that this

program will not proceed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The

question of the relocation of the facilities, or their replacement, is

still under consideration. No decision has yet been made with respect

to that matter.

STORAGE OF KINSELLA FURNITURE

MR. NICOLSON:

A question to the Provincial Secretary. Patrick Kinsella's

ostentatious, custom-made furniture, which even the rich don't want to

buy, is in storage with B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is B.C. Buildings

Corporation billing the Premier's office for the storage of Kinsella's

furniture?

HON. MR. WOLFE: My information is that

that furniture had been returned to the original vendor for disposal.

If you're referring to that transaction, that is the information I have.

MR. NICOLSON:

It's my information that the furniture is being stored by B.C.

Buildings and is not back with the vendor, so perhaps the minister

could look into that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be happy to report back on the matter, Mr. Speaker.

HOUSING FORECLOSURES

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks, and Housing. Last

week I asked the minister about foreclosure writs served by the

Vancouver sheriff's office, and the minister chose not to answer. This

week I'm informed that in the first four and a half months of this

year, the number of writs served for foreclosures in the greater

Victoria area has nearly quadrupled over the same period last year.

What action has the government decided to take to alleviate the impact

of high interest rates on British Columbia homeowners?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island has framed the question a

little differently this week. Last week he melded into the question of

housing foreclosures the matter of small business. I presume the

statistics he is quoting today relate also to small business and

housing foreclosures, and to large business as well. As far as I'm

concerned, the number of foreclosures in the greater Vancouver area

relating to housing are minimal at this time.

MR. GABELMANN:

I assume the minister cares about what the respective numbers are. Has

he decided to ask the Attorney-General to supply him with a breakdown

of these figures? If the minister doesn't want that breakdown, has he

then decided to introduce legislation that will protect homeowners

against the loss of their homes?

MR. SPEAKER: Questions requiring legislation or amendments to legislation are not in order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. Doesn't the minister consider that one hard-working person

losing his home is enough for concern, let alone the hundreds of

foreclosures that are happening in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Absolutely. I consider it an absolute tragedy that anyone loses his

home. But the member for North Island attempts to leave the impression

here that the number of foreclosures is increasing dramatically, and my

answer to him is that while small business foreclosures are increasing

very dramatically, it is very difficult to break out

[ Page 7758 ]

foreclosures from those of small business. I'm prepared to attempt to

see whether it is possible to break it down. I know it is time

consuming, but I'm prepared to look at it to see whether there is any

significant increase, or any increase at all in foreclosures on housing

in British Columbia, be it Vancouver, Victoria, or in Port Hardy. I'll

attempt to get that information. I don't know how easy it's going to be

to acquire it, but nevertheless I'm prepared to get it, bring it back

and give a report to the members of the House. I'm sure they're just as

interested as I am in finding out whether there is a problem developing

out there and whether there's a need for it to be addressed forthwith.

MR. GABELMANN:

Can I ask the minister whether or not, as a result of my drawing this

to his attention last week, he instructed his staff to find those

figures out for him last week?

MR. CHABOT: No. I

think if you'll review the Blues you'll see that I didn't give an

indication that I would. I indicated to you in my response last week

that a majority of foreclosures taking place in British Columbia were

associated with small business rather than residential housing. I

didn't give you an undertaking at that time that I would attempt to

procure this information, but I stated just a few moments ago that I

will ask officials of my ministry to see whether it's possible to

secure this information. I'll bring it back to the House as soon as

it's possible to obtain it.

MR. GABELMANN: The

minister says that the greatest number is for business foreclosures. I

wonder what percentage that is exactly, Mr. Minister.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD SURCHARGES

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Workers' Compensation

Board now pays the total costs for hospital treatment for injured

workers receiving treatment. Can the minister confirm that a 35 percent

surcharge has been placed on the hospital charges incurred by the WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Will the minister tell this House who will bear the cost of this 35 percent surcharge?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, obviously the costs will be borne by the WCB through the

assessments which are collected. I might also add that there has been

some concern expressed with respect to the increase. Because of the

cost prior to this time, the full costs were not being absorbed. This

is a matter which is subject to some discussion between myself and the

chairman of the WCB at this time.

MS. SANFORD: I'm

wondering if the minister is aware that this method of raising

additional funds for hospitals will cost the employers in the province

an extra $5 million in 1982.

MR. SPEAKER: That's information being brought. Is there a question there?

MS. SANFORD: Is he aware of it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I cannot give full particulars right now, Mr. Speaker. It is my

understanding that there will be an additional impact on the funding of

the board. If the member wishes further particulars, I'd be quite

prepared to take that part of the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm wondering how the minister can justify the application of this 35

percent surcharge when the Workers' Compensation Board already pays the

full cost of hospital treatment for injured workers. How can the

minister justify that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, the information just given by the member is not as I

understand it to be. I will endeavour to get further and better

particulars if the member so wishes.

McKIM ADVERTISING LTD.

MRS. DAILLY:

My question is to the Provincial Secretary. What tribute will be

extracted from McKim Advertising Ltd. by the Social Credit Party for

the exclusive monopoly right to place government ads?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she has asked what "tribute"?

MRS. DAILLY: Correct.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I can say that the appointment of an agency of record is a policy which

will save the taxpayers of British Columbia a considerable amount of

money in terms of the placement of necessary advertising of programs in

this province. I'm surprised at the member's question, because during

the tenure of the NDP government they, of course, appointed a single

government advertising agency, Dunsky's, who were imported from outside

the province and who placed all advertising....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You talk about tributes. That's some tribute!

MRS. DAILLY:

As the government has already put aside over $20 million for what they

call government advertising, which is becoming known to be strictly

party propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, would

you explain to us how you're going to save the people of British

Columbia money by the hiring of an advertising agency which has as one

of its vice-presidents someone who supports your party?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Only the last part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, continuous reference is made to the

fact that the government spends $20 million on advertising. The actual,

placed media advertising is considerably less than that, and the

majority of

[ Page 7759 ]

the

advertising bill she refers to is represented by a wide variety of

publications explaining a wide variety of government programs across

this province. Actually, placed advertising, as we all understand it,

is something less than $6 million per year I think we should make that

clear, because many members and the media are referring to the fact

that the advertising bill of the government is over $20 million. That's

not so.

Mr. Speaker, it's very clear and obvious how savings

can be accomplished by a single agency placing in the media and

enjoying the benefit of volume discounts, which is a policy used by

many large corporations across this country. So I think this is

something which we cannot ignore any longer in terms of the placement

of government advertising across this province. I think it should be

said that this does not bypass the need for the development of

advertising by a great many advertising agencies. They will no longer

be required to encounter collection problems and all the rest of it;

they will simply develop these programs, and the central agency will be

placing them.

FORESTRY JOBS FOR ZEBALLOS RESIDENTS

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, this time I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

Talisis Co. Ltd. has decided to permanently lay off many long-time

employees who live in the community of Zeballos. At the same time

Talisis is continuing with contract operations in the same area, using

employees who do not live in Zeballos. The government granted the

Artlish timber licence in recognition of the company's need for

additional wood to keep Zeballos alive. Also, the province has spent

millions of dollars of public money in that community, including most

recently $600,000 by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for lot

development. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the

remaining jobs will go to the residents of Zeballos to keep the town in

existence?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member goes into

quite a

preamble, judging the reasons for which certain timber licences

were granted. I would say to him that any timber licences which the

Talisis Co. has have been granted in the normal manner and for the

purpose of that company's being able to carry on a business in British

Columbia, employ people and make use of our natural resources. I am not

about to dictate to that or any other company just which people they

hire and which they don't. They are one of the more progressive

companies in this province, and they've always had a reputation of

being very fair to their employees.

MR. GABELMANN: I

agree that the company has been one of the more progressive companies.

The problem we have here is the government's policy of contracting out.

What the company is doing is responding by saying that they will

maintain only in the community of Zeballos — not the whole TFL — the

fifty-fifty ratio between contract and company operations.

What

I am asking the minister to do is to ensure the survival and the

viability of communities that have long existed in this province. What

policies and actions has the minister decided to take to make sure that

these communities can survive?

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. So that we can hear the opening and

introductory remarks, perhaps those members who are moving would do so

as quietly as possible. Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Bill 42 is a series of largely unrelated amendments to the Forest Act.

It is a difficult bill to speak to in second reading. However, if there

is any general theme it is to provide some flexibility in the rollover

of licences issued under the former Forest Act into the new form of

licences under the new act. It is also to provide some flexibility in

the administration of cutting rights as between the old public

sustained-yield units and timber supply areas which we now use as

timber production areas. It is to treat small operators in at least as

fair a manner as the larger operators have been treated under the

rollover provisions of licences. There are also a number of other

technical amendments for clarification purposes, due to

interpretations

placed upon some sections of the Forest Act which were not those

intended.

I would think that perhaps in committee a more

detailed discussion should take place clause by clause. For that reason

I would move that the bill be now read a second time,

MR. KING:

In general terms I agree with the minister that the bill, which deals

with amendments to the Forest Act, is more appropriate for full

discussion during the committee consideration,

There are a

few general observations I would like to make to alert the minister to

some of the areas of concern I have relating to the amendments. It's a

little difficult in comparing a bill of this type, as the minister says

with its kind of unrelated amendments, to make certain that I

understand the objectives of the amendments. I'll state the areas of

concern I have so the minister may have an indication of those areas

that I'll be asking for greater clarification on when we come to

committee stage of the bill.

The amendment to

section 14, as

I understand it, provides greater flexibility to the ministry to extend

cutting rights in terms of maintaining jobs and regional stability. I'm

a little concerned on two counts. There is this automatic rolling into

long-term tenure of what was a more floating tenure that was provided

under the old legislation. I don't know whether that's increased

flexibility to the minister or not. In theory it's probably a good

thing, but inevitably — at least with the record I've seen over the

past few years — it seems to end up being a greater monopolization of

the resource by fewer and fewer companies. The minister has stated on

many occasions that he too is concerned about the increasing corporate

concentration in the forest industry. Yet when we look at the

administrative record of the new Forest

[ Page 7760 ]

Act,

particularly under this government, we find an increasing tendency

towards a monopolistic, tenure control of B.C. forests. I hope the

minister can indicate, in committee stage, just what he has in mind in

terms of that greater flexibility he seeks in dealing with these old

forms of tenure.

The other aspect of concern I have with

respect to that particular amendment is the regional employment

opportunities. The policy, as briefly stated, has been to associate

cutting rights with processing plants so that employment related to the

harvest of the forest industry is maximized through a relationship to a

sawmill, pulpmill, or whatever. This section, if I understand it

correctly, seems to be somewhat a departure from that principle. In

other words, someone now may be able to obtain this form of licence

without the rollover of that licence being related to the need to

fabricate the raw resource in a particular regional plant. The minister

is aware, as I'm sure the House is, that this could result in a net

loss of jobs for a particular region of the province, contrary to the

policy enunciated by the minister and clearly spelled out in the

five-year forest and range resource report. Those are concerns I have,

and I'd like to have the minister's reaction to those concerns when we

get into committee stage.

With respect to the TSAs, again,

there seems to be an objective of rolling cutting rights from timber

sale areas into new licences. There is a possibility here, as I read

it, with greater flexibility to the minister, of having existing

companies close down some of their processing plants without

jeopardizing the timber supply they enjoy. I hope that's not the

minister's objective. I don't imagine it is. I would rather see, if

anything, a firmed-up. requirement to ensure that those people seeking

to enjoy tenure on our forest resource be obliged to maximize

employment. I would rather see the tightening up than the relaxation of

any potential for the companies to close processing plants. Indeed, in

my view, if that should occur, then the tenure that they hold on the

timber allocation should be passed on to someone else who is willing to

harvest, and manage the resource in such a way that employment

opportunity is maximized through ensuring that the resource is

fabricated to the highest end use in the province. I have some concern

as to whether or not — however vaguely that potential may be opened up

to that particular section.

Sections 4 and 5, as I've

discussed with the minister before, I think relate to the small

business sales. There's a rather small problem with respect to small

business sales which may be awarded in a fairly isolated area of the

province and then future sales that would ensure continued operation

for that small contractor after having moved in his equipment. It may

be awarded on a provincial basis with competition flowing from the

length and breadth of the province. As it stood in the past, the lowest

bidder got the nod. As I understand it, the objective of the new

sections 4 and 5 is to allow the established small business contractor

an opportunity to match the lowest bid for other sales in the area,

ensuring that those who have moved in equipment have at least an

economic shot at having some possible tenure for some reasonable length

of time, justifying the costs of moving in their equipment. On the face

of it, that makes good sense, but it also creates some problems in

terms of the principle of wide-open competition. I would like some very

clear indication from the minister in committee stage as to just what

mechanism — what kind of policy and administrative apparatus — he

intends to utilize for managing this particular provision. I think the

objective is a good one, but it also lends itself to some — I wouldn't

say abuse — sloppy custodianship that could be highly controversial

unless there is a very clear set of policy guidelines and perhaps some

regions designated, whether it be the existing forest districts or

whatever, so that local competitors are clearly delineated as opposed

to those from outside the region.

I don't like to see a

great deal of discretion awarded to any minister of the Crown,

particularly when that minister has the authority to award absolute

harvest rights to a renewable resource such as the forest industry —

and, indeed, any resource. While I agree that the objective here is

probably a good one, I certainly would not want to see wide-open

discretion granted to this minister or any other minister without very

clear policy guidelines as to how it is going to be administered to

ensure that not even a hint of favouritism in the award of forest

licences should manifest itself.

I'm concerned about the

automatic rollover of some of the forms of tenure into tree-farm

licences. I have a number of examples respecting these new forest

licences that I intend to raise when we're in committee stage. I'm a

little bit concerned about the criteria relating to this. I understand

this was the minister's pet project; it was his policy rather than any

great input from the industry itself or from his ministerial staff.

I've

had a look at some of those new tree-farm licences that have been

awarded or are in the process of being awarded. I note with some

concern that there are only a very small select number of people who

would be able to qualify. I'm not suggesting that that select few are

receiving any particular favour, but again I would note with a word of

caution that any kind of select criteria and any amount of undue

discretion by the minister in awarding very valuable resource contracts

should be viewed and scrutinized very, very carefully, as a matter of

principle and as a matter of sound public policy. I'm going to be

raising those questions in greater detail when we get into the

committee stage on the bill.

The other things I think are

mainly housekeeping; they're not controversial in the same sense as

those points I've raised. One thing I am a bit concerned about is that

the bill was introduced into the Legislature just two or three weeks

ago. I have sent out some copies to the regional industrial interests

in the province and it's more.... The amendments deal to a greater

extent, of course, with the interior than the coastal areas of the

forest industry. But, really, the minister hasn't provided a great

amount of time for the industry to respond to this legislation. It may

be that he has consulted in advance and discussed at least the

principles of the amendments he was bringing in, but as far as I'm

concerned, for rather important amendments like this to the Forest Act

it would be prudent to allow a greater amount of time so that both the

opposition and the government might receive some more detailed feedback

from the industry in terms of how they perceive these amendments

affecting them in the various regions of the province. I think the

minister will appreciate that it's very difficult to develop a broad

policy in Victoria that applies equitably and fairly and in exactly the

same fashion to all interior regions of this far-flung province, and I

would hope that he would allow the bill to remain for a period of time

before it is called for committee stage so that we may receive the

industry's reaction a bit more intensely before the bill is pushed

through the House.

[ Page 7761 ]

With

those comments, I indicate that we support the amendments in principle,

and we'll be looking at them in a far more detailed fashion during

committee stage on this bill.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm

sure that we will have every opportunity either during the committee

stage of the bill or later in the session during my estimates to

discuss many matters of policy. At this time I think I should just move

second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

42, Forest Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 12.

HEALTH COST STABILIZATION ACT

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the Health Cost Stabilization Act will assist in assuring

the provision of $77.8 million in funds for the health-care system

where money is not allocated within general revenue. These funds have

been identified from special purpose funds and allocated to health

care. The government policy in preparing the annual estimates of

expenditure is that they shall not exceed estimates of revenue. In

other words, government will not borrow money to fund ongoing

operational expenses. In preparing the estimates for the fiscal year

1982-83, government was required to respond to increasing expenditure

pressures in the healthcare system, while at the same time facing

decreasing revenues. In striking a balanced budget for 1982-83 in

accord with government policy, the government determined it would not

be able to appropriately fund a number of important areas within the

health-care system from the estimates and the general revenues.

The

situation left the government with relatively few options: either

reducing health-care services by freezing expenditures at a level which

could be met by the general revenues; dramatically increasing user

charges or other fees to provide additional financing; or we could take

a look at funds which have been put aside from previous years to assist

in assuring health-care delivery during this present difficult economic

period. By putting this fund together, the government obviously chose

the third option, deciding to appropriate $77.8 million to maintain the

health system. The funds will be used to address specific areas of

rising health costs. Substantial amounts of the $77.8 million will be

allocated to hospital programs, to improve funds for increasing

population growth and the effect of that growth on billings to our

medical services plan, and also to assist in covering the cost of the

long-term care program.

I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that

despite the fact that we are facing very difficult economic times, the

government's commitment to health-care delivery continues. The increase

in long-term care spending of 24 percent reflects that commitment.

These funds included in the Health Cost Stabilization Act are in

addition to the funds which have been allocated in the general budget

of $2.236 billion, which in total represents approximately 30 percent

of the provincial government spending.

With those comments on the one-clause act, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, certainly anything going into the health-care component of

government responsibility is going to be supported by this side of the

House. Having said that, it strikes me that that. money is already

spent. That's one of the reasons we have it before us in this form.

Otherwise it would have been in the estimates and could have been

freely discussed at that time. It's unfortunate that we're discussing a

bill of half a dozen lines allocating $77 million.

I keep

hearing the minister talking about the magnitude of health care and its

cost to the province. I keep hearing it, but that argument loses itself

on me. The reason it loses itself on me is that while he stands there

and talks about this fantastic budget of $2.236 billion, he neglects to

tell us that $960 million of it comes from our friends in the east —

the feds. I gather that the minister needs to be reminded from time to

time, Moreover, another couple of hundred million dollars comes from

the people of the province who pay their medicare premium, which has

been raised and raised. As a matter of fact, it has been raised twice

in the seven-month period just prior to this session of the

Legislature. The user costs — ambulances. beds in hospitals and

long-term care costs — have all been increasing in terms of the

patients' participation. When we hear the bleatings of $2.236 billion,

don't try to get the rumour out that this government is paying that

$2.236 billion out of their own coffers. They're doing a lot of

collecting outside of general revenue. Some of those means of

collecting have been a hardship on people.

I have before me

a document that took some time to prepare. It's a document telling us

how hospitals are spending large sums in comparison with other

jurisdictions, making arguments that there's something wrong with our

hospitals and not with the ministry. I say that because the document is

from Richard Basset, executive assistant, with a copy to George

Gibault, Social Credit caucus research. I would like to know what part

of the $77 million, which we're talking about right now, was spent on

preparing this piece of propaganda for the government members in this

House.

I don't have a nicely bound copy of it, Mr. Speaker,

but I'm sure there are some around this legislative building. I

certainly have a faithful copy, which tells me there is bias there. I'd

like to make one or two recommendations with respect to those biases.

I'd like to suggest that we shouldn't be wasting part of the $77

million or part of the $2.236 billion or whatever else on this kind of

support for a ministry gone wild. We should be spending that portion of

the money on the delivery of health care, rather than in the defence of

an indefensible situation.

One argument raised in this

report is a comparison of B.C., in terms of the utilization of our

beds.... We're shown to have a much longer length-of-stay in B.C. than

in most other jurisdictions, as a matter of fact, we're ninth out of

ten in the country. One reason for that is because a year ago the

ministry cut back home care in a major way, thereby shoving chronically

ill people into our acute-care hospitals. I could have told him that

without him putting out a report. At that time we told him it would

happen. Also, his long-term care program came in without sufficient

facilities to provide for the chronically ill, so they wind up in our

acute-care hospitals. The minister can say, "Well, they're taken out of

the picture," but they're not taken out of the picture. There are

hundreds and hundreds of them in and out of our acute-

[ Page 7762 ]

care

hospitals, and they're in for long stays. After they've been in there

for a month or two or three, eventually they can be reassessed, and

then the acute-care hospital pays the rate for extended or long-term

care. As has been said many times, statistics are only used by those

who are trying to support an argument that is otherwise difficult.

say that minister is in deep trouble. His ministry is spending far too

much time defending their policy rather than getting out into the

community and coordinating our services. I agree, we have a very large

budget in this province. Now we're increasing that budget. That's

really what we're talking about. It's a very unconventional way of

putting a budget together. In other words, we have a budget before us,

and then the minister comes in with this additional $77 million. Let me

assure the people out there that it is not going to do a thing for our

present problem — that is, the bed closures all over the province. The

Vancouver General has had a reduction of 175 beds — the minister's own

hospital. That hospital was put under trusteeship by the ministry some

four years ago and is still under trusteeship. So the minister is

running the hospital. Incidentally, it is the hospital with the worst

statistics in this report, using the minister's own system of showing

what efficiency is. This $77 million is not going to open up the 55

beds that were closed in the Lions Gate Hospital, nor the 84 beds

closed at Royal Inland in Kamloops, nor the 12 beds in Cranbrook, nor

the 109 in the Royal Columbian in New Westminster, nor the 39 in

Langley, nor the 36 in Burnaby, nor the 42 in Nanaimo, nor the 161 at

the Royal Jubilee in Victoria — which, incidentally, I hear by the

grapevine could be as high as 229, nor those 36 to 50 at Gorge Road,

nor those 50 to 75 at the Juan de Fuca Society. This total, as I see

it, is some 1,100-odd beds. So far we've heard nothing from the

ministry that would indicate to us that they are going to take

seriously this very serious health crisis that we have.

The

minister has gotten up in the House from time to time and lambasted me

for being irresponsible for bringing these matters to the attention of

people, saying that we should see to it that we don't create any kind

of hysteria out there. I want to remind the minister that the people

who pay taxes wish that their taxes will be spent on their behalf and

in such a way as to provide, when necessary, the level of health care

that this society can provide.

I've said before and I'll say

again that the one area that people do not resent paying taxes to

support is health care. Most people, in their mind's eye, can see

themselves or their families requiring those services somewhere along

the line. Many people around us require those services right at this

moment.

As I said before, certainly we have no choice but to

support the $77.8 million which there has been no explanation of, other

than the minister's broad brush strokes as to where he is going to be

using the money. We also want to tell the minister that there are many

aspects of his ministry and of our delivery system in this province

that we're going to be questioning and will continue to question. His

admonitions about us raising public concern are not as important, in my

view, as having the public assured that they will have access to what

we have known in the past as a health-care system that can support the

people in need in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We

will have the opportunity, I presume, of discussing many of these

aspects of programs the member for New Westminster referred to in

estimates or perhaps even in third reading of this one-clause bill. I

have just one comment. The member mentioned moneys coming from

different sources to contribute to the costs of health-care delivery in

the province. I think probably the member might agree that all the

money that goes to the health-care programs in our province inevitably

come out of the British Columbia taxpayers' pockets, directly or

indirectly. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

12, Health Cost Stabilization Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to introduce my

estimates to the House. The first time I did this was, I believe, in

the spring of 1977. It's beginning to be old hat. But I want to have

the opportunity today to talk about the ministry and the industry that

we deal with, one of our most important primary industries in this

province, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. My votes total

$76,407,158. I should mention to my colleagues and those opposite that

$6 million of that relates to the ICBC senior citizens' grant. During

estimates, of course, I would respond to questions concerning the

responsibility I have for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Mr.

Chairman, in my opening remarks I want to say that agriculture has

experienced a tough past year — no different than any other sector of

our economy — but we have seen an increase in the marketing of farm

products and a record level of farm cash receipts, some $884 million in

1981, which is 18.6 percent above the figures recorded for the year

1980. I think it's important to note that agriculture, like all other

industries, has had impacts from ever-increasing costs. So although we

may see an 18 percent increase in revenues, the offset is the increase

that we've experienced in farm expenses. Total farm expenses for 1981

were approximately $678 million, an increase of about $150 million over

1980. So you can see that although we've had a substantial increase in

revenues, we've also had a substantial increase in expenditures. In the

area of expenditures, such items as farm rent, fertilizer, electricity,

feed and — the major impact on operating the farm — the interest on

farm debt, had a substantial impact on our total expenses for the year.

have the partial interest-reimbursement program, which does afford the

farmer a measure of relief in servicing this farm debt. In 1981 the

program paid out to the farmers, to help offset that debt service,

approximately $12 million in interest reimbursement payments on 1980

loans. I recognize — and I'm sure members opposite will want to comment

on this fact — that the interest reimbursement program does give

relief, but when interest rates rise to the levels that they have

reached in the past year, that measure of comfort may not be as large a

benefit as it has been in the past years when interest rates were

lower. However, we do provide that assistance; it

[ Page

7763 ]

does

total $12 million in the past year; and it is an indication of how we

attempt to assist our farm community in that high cost item of

servicing of interest costs.

We also have a number of other

financial assistance programs which I think are worthy of mention. We

have the farm income assurance program, which provides some relief to

the farm community when a depressed market occurs. We have our

agricultural credit program, our crop insurance program, and our farm

products finance program, along with ARDSA, the agriculture and rural

development subsidiary agreement, and what is known as the ALDA

program, the Agricultural Land Development Act program, which provides

assistance to the farmer in developing his farm operation.

Out

of the total $70 million budget — that's exclusive of the ICBC $6

million figure — approximately $45 million goes into financial

assistance programs administered by my ministry, and that totals about

64 percent of the budget figure. It gives an indication of how this

ministry attempts to support the agriculture community and provide

programs that are directly related to the farm operation both in

developing the farm and agricultural industry in the province and, at

the same time, providing some relief from ever-increasing costs under

the interest reimbursement program and some relief under the farm

income insurance program against severely depressed market situations

which happen from time to time — not because of anything we do here,

but usually because of imported products coming in at a lower price

than we can produce our product for.

Farm income assurance

is perhaps the best-known program in the farm community, because of its

far-reaching benefits. Income assurance plans in place during 1981-82

covered 20 commodities and over 4,100 participants. In case some

members may feel this is a "subsidy," I want to point out that it is

not. It is an insurance program whereby the farm community contributes

50 percent of the cost of the premiums and the government contributes

the other 50 percent. It is a program that has maintained stability in

the farm community in the past number of years.

I know the

members opposite would like to get into the questioning of the

minister, but I want to take just a few more minutes to talk about the

agricultural credit programs. As I mentioned, we have a guaranteed loan

program. During 1981-82, 34 loans were guaranteed. As a result of these

guarantees, approved lenders such as banks and credit unions approved

total loan portfolios to farms of over $12.3 million.

I have

touched on the interest reimbursement program and mentioned that over

$12 million was paid out last year to cover the partial

interest-reimbursement program. Under the agricultural credit programs,

we do have what we call special programs. To date we have paid out some

$42,000 to participants on the grapevine assistance program which we

started in 1978-79. This allowed for new plantings of new grapevines in

the province. Those new vines were of the vinifera variety and have

enabled our wineries in this province to produce a better quality wine.

You can see from the results of the expansion of the wine industry in

British Columbia that that program has gone a long way to provide our

grape producers with the ability to plant new vines and also provide

our wineries with high-quality grapes to produce a high quality product.

We also have what we call the asparagus production incentive program, under

which about 250 acres of asparagus has been planted since 1980, which will stimulate

an increase in the production of that crop in British Columbia. There is still

room for substantial expansion there, because we do not produce anywhere near

the amount of asparagus that we could sell in this province.

1981 we had a rain-damage crop program, which was put into place to

help some of the south-coastal region farmers who suffered from the

very damp spring in 1981. It provided them with low-cost loans to

enable them to replant and recover from the disastrous spring they had

last year — some of the farmers were unable to plant or harvest a crop

at all; others had a reduced crop because of the extreme wetness last

spring. We were able to put into place a special program, and I think

it was well-received by the farm community.

As I mentioned,

647 contracts were issued under the Agricultural Land Development Act,

totalling some $5.9 million. That program provides loans up to $25,000

over a 15-year term at an interest rate half of prime, and allows the

farmer to develop his land base and get into production at a reasonable

cost, rather than face the horrendous interest costs he would have to

face if he were borrowing from a commercial bank,

The ARDSA

program, as I've mentioned many times before, was the $60 million

agreement between the federal and provincial governments. I consider

this as the flagship program of my ministry. To March 31, 1982, we've

had commitments totalling $48 million, out of which we have expended

$34.5 million. We have already committed $13.5 million to specific

projects. You can see a tremendous amount of activity in the farm

community because of the ARDSA program. We've provided assistance to 98

range units, 25 irrigation and water supply systems, 17 drainage

systems, 23 agricultural service industries, which includes six large

veterinarian clinics, 71 processing plants and 49 rural electrification

projects — a total of 338 projects in that program.

Crop

insurance is another assistance program available to us that we

administer and that the farmer pays a premium for. Insured farmers in

this province now total 1, 951 for various crops. We anticipate,

because of the problems of 1981, that an improvement in our vegetable

crop insurance program will hopefully extend protection for six more

crops, such as broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower,

carrots and onions, which were severely damaged last year by the damp

spring.

Under our operations section, we have entered into a

regionalized service to farmers. It's been operating now for about two

years under this new structure whereby we have five regional directors

and staff reporting to them in the various regions of the province. We

feel this has been very successful and has provided much better access

by the farmer to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These extension

services have put on hundreds of short courses, seminars and field

demonstrations throughout the province. More will of course be

conducted in 1982.

We are looking for new ways to transfer

information to farmers, including field demonstrations of applied

research on our institutional farms. We're also looking at the

electronic media to get information to farmers in remote areas. For

example, a recently completed television broadcast on beef cattle

management aired on the Knowledge Network. We hope to expand this

service to the farm community in the future.

Interjections.

[ Page 7764 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I know some of the members opposite aren't too interested in

agriculture and like to comment from across the floor while I'm giving

these opening remarks. However, I did not want just to welcome my staff

to the chamber and then sit down and wait for questions. I thought I

should, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, take this opportunity to

speak out for the agriculture industry in this province. I know some of

the members are tired from playing golf and don't want to hear this

afternoon about one of the most important industries in the province

and in Canada. Quite often we don't consider the fact that agriculture

is the primary industry in this province. When the ups and downs of the

worldwide marketplace are felt in forestry and mining, we can see

tremendous stability in the agriculture industry. I want to take these

few moments to make sure my colleagues in this chamber understand the

importance of that industry.

In regard to production

services, we have a number of programs that I know the member opposite

might be interested in. It may be a small item to you, Mr. Member for

Vancouver, but we continued working to develop more efficient ways with

regard to the overwintering of honey bees in British Columbia. If we

can achieve that, we can see an expansion of our honey industry in this

province.

We have been in the past year, and will be in the

coming year, dealing with another important matter, and that is the

continuation of the fine-tuning program under the agricultural land

reserve. That commission and this government come in for a fair amount

of criticism from time to time with regard to applications for

exclusion or subdivision of agricultural land. I can only say that my

commissioners and their staff are attempting to better identify

agricultural land in this province so as to have a reserve that we can

properly say identifies agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

When the reserve was put into place in 1974 it fell like a leaden

blanket over this province, with a tremendous impact on all the

property owners who were farm operators or held rural properties in

this province. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the man who was

responsible for putting that leaden blanket over the entire province,

has from time to time, like his colleagues, accused this government of

favouritism and of making decisions with regard to political

affiliation. I can only say that when you talk to the farm community

and they tell you, when the political rhetoric is finished: "Mr.

Minister, we're not sure why it took you so long to achieve that goal

of releasing that land, because it was not suitable for

agriculture...." It had never been farmed and likely would never be

farmed because of the climate, because it was a gravel pit, because it

was surrounded by urban development, because it was a river bed, or

whatever.

Those are the problems that my land commissioners

face in dealing with this serious matter of preservation of farmland. I

think we've addressed the question in a straightforward and forthright

manner. We will continue to take the comments from the opposition and

from those who feel that the member for Nanaimo's agricultural land

reserve was etched in stone. We will continue to take that abuse, but I

can tell you in all sincerity that, as Minister of Agriculture and

Food, I am very satisfied with the work of the Agricultural Land

Commission, their staff, and my staff, and with the work and decisions

of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, who don't run

away from the issue but address the question with regard to the

material presented and the in-depth studies that are done. If any

members feel otherwise, they are free to comment. I just point out that

we are working on an ongoing basis so that at some point in time we

will be able to say in all sincerity that the land within the

agricultural land reserve is there for food production now and in the

future.

Another subject, related to food production, is the

work we've done and the cooperation we've had from the regional

districts and the Cattlemen's Association with regard to our efforts to

control the knapweed problem in the ranchlands of this province. We

expended a considerable amount of money last year. With the combined

expenditure of regional districts, the total cost last year was $1.25

million earmarked for knapweed control. I am hopeful that we'll be able

to carry on making inroads to this very serious threat to the cattle

industry in this province.

Looking at the activities of the

ministry, another example is in cooperation with the tree-fruit

industry. We've seen a tree-fruit test orchard developed near Oliver

which will play a big part, in the next several years, in identifying,

on a commercial scale, the most important varieties for our particular

crop and growing conditions in the Okanagan Valley. This is a project

that I think will be of great benefit to the tree-fruit industry. I was

more than pleased to attend, with the federal Minister of Agriculture,

the opening of that test orchard just outside of Oliver,

Moving

to another sector of the ministry — economics and marketing — I have

been and continue to be a firm believer that returns to the farmer must

be derived from the marketplace. While government has a responsibility,

which we have exercised, to provide some stability when disastrous

conditions exist, the major source of revenue — ideally, the only

source — must be from the marketplace. That is the main objective of

our economics and marketing branch. In the past year we have provided a

number of courses. We have worked in identifying those areas where we

can see an opportunity for expanded markets of our products. I think

that as we get into the discussion of the estimates we will see, by

some of the comments I will be making in response to questions, an

expansion in the agriculture community of those commodities where we've

been involved in assisting them in their marketing activities.

Mr.

Chairman, we have offered intensive training and financial management

to hundreds of farmers across the province to upgrade their skills in

financial management, which will help them, of course, through these

tough economic times, but it will also enable them to plan into the

future. For example, with a slight adjustment in the timing or

marketing, the reduction of transportation costs or improved marketing

efficiencies in several key areas could conceivably improve revenues by

4 or 5 percent, and that 4 or 5 percent could well wipe out a potential

loss or provide a modest increase in profit to the farmer because of

his expertise in scheduling his crop in relationship to the market. We

can and we must take advantage of the right market opportunities by

producing the right kind of product when the consumers want it, rather

than sticking to traditional products that we find convenient to

produce when it is convenient to do so, but not, in some cases,

convenient to the consumer. I must say that we're having good

cooperation with the various commodity groups in identifying these

opportunities for us.

I have no hesitation in saying that in our specialist and regulatory services there exists a core of specialists that is

[ Page

7765 ]

probably one of the best in the entire country in

the technological disciplines of agricultural, engineering, soils

entomology, plant pathology, milk quality and veterinarian science.

These are highly skilled professionals who are recognized across Canada

as leaders in their areas of expertise. For example, for the benefit of

the members present, our engineering branch designed a rangeland seeder

that is probably the most sophisticated machine of its type in North

America. In fact, it has received wide acclaim not only from local

ranchers in the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, but also from highly

regarded range specialists in the United States. Since the development

of the machine a few years ago, we have seeded over 8,000 hectares of

B.C. rangeland with remarkable results, which could result in up to a

twenty-fold increase in grass production in those areas that have been

reseeded through the use of this range reseeder. We're hopeful that we

can expand the use of that this year and in coming years, in order that

we see an ever-expanding cattle industry in this province.

Mr.

Chairman, those are basically my remarks. As I mentioned in the

beginning, my total budget is $76 million. Six million dollars of that

relates to the ICBC senior citizens, grant. As that activity or

responsibility comes under my estimates, I'd be quite prepared, as

minister responsible for ICBC, to comment on that corporation's

activities in response to any questions. I would also like to again

state that under my ministry come the Agricultural Land Commission and

the agricultural land reserves, and I look forward to questions on that

responsibility as well.

With me in the House today I have my

deputy minister, Mr. Sig Peterson, and Mr. Dave Davies, who are here to

assist me in responding to any questions the members may raise.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, we've heard a very lengthy outline of what the minister is or is

not doing for the agriculture community in British Columbia. It's

interesting to note that in his opening remarks he talked about the

fact that it was a tough year for agriculture, the economy was bad and

so on. That's a little change from other years, when he's come in here

and told us about how the agricultural industry has been growing in

British Columbia and how the returns have been going up. In those other

instances when he has done that, Mr. Chairman, I have been able to

indicate to the Legislature that, using his own figures, the price

squeeze has been affecting agriculture even in those previous years.

Certainly this year it's extremely bad. Again, using his own figures

based on 1981 over 1980, we see that the minister estimates the total

net farm income in 1981 at $119 million as opposed to $164 million in

1980. That's how much agriculture in British Columbia is growing. In

the face of an 11 to 12 percent inflation rate, we have the net return

to the farm community down from $164.5 million in 1980 to $119.3

million in 1981.

I note, too, that there is no change in '80

over '81 in the number of farms. The minister told us that in 1980

there were 20,800 farms in British Columbia, and he tells us that in

1981 there were exactly the same number — no increase whatsoever.

If we look at some other figures in this little brochure which he has put out

for 1981, we find that the farm input price index for western Canada — this

is the input index — is 296.8 compared to 100 in 1971. But the index of farm

prices — this is the return — is 270.6. That's 26 points lower return than

the input. At the same time the consumer price index is 282.8 as compared to

100 in 1971, and that indicates to me that the farm gate price certainly is

well below what the consumer is paying. We also find that the average weekly

earnings have gone up much less than has the cost of food. That's just an

interesting sidelight, Mr. Chairman. The index of '81 over '71 for weekly

earnings is only 253.7. Those figures really don't point to any great success

of this minister in improving the agriculture industry. When we see headlines

like, "Food Prices Jump as Farmers Go Broke," we realize the number

of bankruptcies facing the agricultural industry and the kind of problems that

those farmers are facing.

The

minister has indicated that all the opposition to what he is doing

comes from this side of the House. That's not really quite correct, Mr.

Chairman. I have in my hand a press release issued by the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture after the budget came down this year. It

reads in part:

"''The provincial budget raises concern among farmers

that financial assistance programs are being undermined,' says George Aylard,

president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. 'I think there has been

a certain amount of concern,' he said. 'Our comment is that we agree

to some extent with restraint, but we feel they made a commitment with the agricultural

land reserve to keep farming viable.'"

That was a commitment made in another day by another government, but this government

must honour that commitment, and it is not doing so. It is not honouring the

commitment to ensure that farming does remain viable. The minister talks about

getting the return out of the marketplace, and we can all agree that that's

the desirable end source, but in the meantime there is a commitment to keep

the agricultural industry viable. This minister has failed to do that. He has

failed to keep the industry viable, and every group of farm organizations around

this province is critical of his stance, be it the B.C. Federation of Agriculture,

the National Farmers Union, Farmers Institutes or commodity groups. They are

all concerned that he does not really have that commitment to ensure that the

industry remains viable.

One

of their concerns certainly is the fact that the minister never seems

to be successful, when he meets with the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, in getting into his estimates the dollars really

required for the support programs that would make the industry viable.

He has talked about the percentage of dollars in his total budget going

into these programs, but if you look at that total budget.... He has

admitted that that $6 million in there is just so many nonagricultural

dollars mistakenly put into the agricultural budget — and always

calculated by the Minister of Finance, incidentally, as being part of

the increase of the agricultural budget. But if you take that out, it's

interesting to note that for the first time since 1972, the

agricultural budget this year represents less than I percent of the

total budget. So it certainly indicates — not just to us on this side

of the House but to the agricultural community — that there is not a

real commitment to agriculture on the part of this government.

When

we hear some of the statements of other ministers who go around this

province — the first minister, for example, talks about agriculture not

being an important industry; that the only thing we can ever hope to

produce in any amount is apples — we really can believe, that this

minister has not managed to convince cabinet or Treasury Board of the

importance of agriculture as a resource industry that he talks about

when he comes into this House. It's certainly a very important resource

industry when you're talking about production of food, which like pure

water is perhaps even a more basic

[ Page 7766 ]

requirement than shelter in order for a society or individuals to just exist.

have spoken about the agricultural community and their feelings

relative to this ministry. The president and vice president of the

Federation of Agriculture, on the various occasions I have heard them

speak, have indicated their concern. They're extremely concerned about

the interest rebate program. The minister likes to come in the House

and tell us that he can't give too much money because it wouldn't be

fair to other sectors of society if he gave too much in that particular

program. He talked about the dollars: $20 million one year and down to

$12 million the next. Now they're thinking $6 million or $8 million. I

think he has $12 million in the budget, but I don't think he's going to

spend that much on that particular program, because high interest rates

are very beneficial to this minister as far as this program goes.

As the interest rates go up a lot of the people who have already

taken loans out are committed to that interest, which is much lower

than the prime rate. So the higher the interest rate goes, the less he

has to pay. That's evident by what he actually paid out last year on

this program. It certainly is forecast that very probably it will only

cost $6 million to $8 million under the present terms he's insisting on

— to rebate only to 1 percent below prime. The higher those interest

rates go, the less he pays out. It's to his benefit to have those

interest rates go up. It certainly isn't to the benefit of the farm

community, because every member of the farm community is faced with

some pretty exorbitant costs relative to interest payments. Those

payments are going higher and higher. We find the proportion of the

cost that has to be borne by the agricultural community is more and

more related to the costs of interest.

I mentioned the president of the Federation of Agriculture. He

came into Cowichan to speak to the Cowichan Agricultural Society. He

dealt with the programs and concerns of the Federation of Agriculture.

He said:

"As many of you are aware, one of the

federation's top priorities was to press for changes in the interest

reimbursement program. Despite, concerted and repeated efforts,

meetings with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, his senior staff,

cabinet, party caucuses, individual MLAs and the Premier, the program

was not changed. It remains at 1 percent below prime as a target level,

with a maximum payment of $10,000 per individual.

"We

continue to be dissatisfied with this, and believe some changes are in

order. Our position has been confirmed by figures made available

recently under program expenditure. The government spent approximately

$12 million on interest reimbursement in 1981, while it had budgeted in

the neighbourhood of $17 million. Even as it stands there is some

cushion — some funds available to ease the high interest costs facing

farmers. Something has to be done, and if our proposals for changing

the interest-reimbursement program are not acceptable to this

government, then we are prepared to consider other alternatives."

That's

where the farm community stands relative to the interest program. He

went on to talk about farm income assurance in the same speech:

"Farm

income assurance is another program that requires amendment if we are

to prevent erosion of the benefits. Over the past year, in discussions

with the minister and his senior staff on the memorandum of

understanding, agreement was reached on incorporating legislated

employee benefits. The outstanding concerns, which we will continue to

press for, include the escalation of an owner-operator labour rate and

a new system for capital cost."

Another thing that I've

certainly heard the farm community talk about is the slowness in

negotiating further contracts and the slowness in payments. For

example, if the minister will check his records, I think he will find

that in the beef program, which is normally paid about 50 percent out

of one fiscal year and 50 percent out of the other for any given year,

not one red cent was paid out last year — on a program that was owing.

We have had this same story over and over with apples and various

things, this dragging of the heels with regard to money. The farmers'

premiums are in but the government is not prepared to make those

payments when they should be made. It cuts the cash flow down for the

farmer, who needs those dollars. Premium dollars used to sit in a

special fund; now they will sit in general revenue.

No one

knows just how the interest is going to be calculated on those, how

that is going to work, yet he tells us that this farm income assurance

program is such a great thing. He tells us it's there and it's going to

be a stopgap measure because he wants to get it all out of the

marketplace. As I said earlier, no one will deny that it would be a

great thing if we could do it, but we can't get that return out of the

marketplace at this time because there is no way to meet the

competition and get a return equivalent to the cost of production for

some of these products — products that are dumped on the market from

countries where land, labour, water, all those things, are much lower

in cost and with heavier subsidies. They come in here and our farmers

have to compete on an open market. That situation has to be offset by

farm income assurance. It's not just something to level you the hollows

and the burnps; it is a program instigated to make farming viable. As I

said earlier, that commitment was given to the farm community when the

agricultural land reserve came into being, and it is a commitment this

government is not prepared to keep.

In an address to the

B.C. Institute of Agrologists, the vice-president of the Federation of

Agriculture said that he believes unrealistic cuts have been made to

the interest reimbursement program and that funds for farm income

assurance are inadequate to cover inflationary costs in farm

production. He goes on to detail the interest reimbursement program

with figures similar to those given by Mr. Aylard. He said that the

cost to the provincial treasury has dropped significantly, from $24

million in 1980 to $12 million in 1981. We calculate a range of $6

million to $8 million for the fiscal year of 1982. This minister tells

us he is going to spend $12 million on that program, and under the

terms he's insisting on putting into place this is very discriminatory,

because the higher the interest rate, the less the farmer gets out of

it.

For that reason I think he probably has too much money

in that particular program. It is not too much for the needs of the

farmer. There should be much more than there is; we should be looking

at $20 million or $30 million in that program. But in order to spend

that, he has to change the terms of the contract and he has adamantly

refused to do that. He has stuck to his contention of I percent below

prime, no matter how high prime goes. That has been very detrimental to

the farm community, who have had to put out more and more of their

dollar return in order to meet those interest costs. It has been

estimated that in 1960, if you had approximately 30 percent equity in

your farm, you could meet your capital and

[ Page

7767 ]

interest costs and continue to be a viable entity.

In order to do that today, it has been estimated by the Economic

Council of Canada, I believe, that you need something like 75 percent

equity in your farm before you can begin to cope with those capital

costs and interest costs and operate a viable entity. That's quite a

difference over a matter of 20 years, and it certainly puts the farm

community in an unenviable position when trying to deal with that,

because I think we would all agree that it is a high capital cost

concern.

Another well-known name in the agricultural

community is the president of the B.C. Tree Fruits association. He's

another person who has been indicating very clearly the problems that

they're experiencing with cash flow, their concerns about the farm

income assurance program and their concerns about the interest rebate

program. You can see why they would when you pick up news clippings

like this from the Globe and Mail of April 16, 1982, that says

that the cash receipts by Canadian farms for January and February fell

0.8 percent, which was a drop of $30 million in two months. That was

just cash receipts, entirely apart from the price squeeze.

Another

clipping tells of farm bankruptcies spreading to the west. Certainly we

are facing farm bankruptcies here now. As well as small businesses and

houses, we're facing bankruptcies in the farming community. There's

nothing — no action, no measures, no proposals — from this minister. He

talks about the reorganization in his ministry and these branch

regional offices. He's got so many layers between himself and the

community, and so many people charged with supervision, and so many

chiefs in the various areas, that the number of people actually out on

the site has, in many areas, apparently decreased. I'm getting reports

of offices that are closed because there aren't enough people around to

man them and be out in the field. I'm getting reports of trade fairs

and so on where other ministries have demonstrations and displays — and

this one came from the Peace River, which is an agricultural community,

yet the Ministry of Agriculture had nothing at all in that particular

fair.... I'm concerned that he has so many people at the supervisory

level that he doesn't have enough people out there actually doing the

job. In the reorganization and the regionalizing, we have people drawn

into regional centres so they were close at hand to their regional

supervisor, and in many instances removed them from the close contact

in the area where they had been stationed previously.

I was

at a farmers' meeting out in Saanich not too long ago, and I was quite

amused — well, not amused really, but certainly it was interesting to

note their consensus, their opinion. After much discussion about the

budget, and the lack of returns, and what they felt was the lack of

interest on the part of the minister, they finally came to the

conclusion that the real Minister of Agriculture was the Minister of

Finance, and that he was making the decisions. This was interesting

inasmuch as it came from Saanich. They felt that the Minister of

Finance was really making the decisions about agriculture and that he

was the real Minister of Agriculture, because he was the one who was

hanging onto the purse strings and this particular Minister of

Agriculture wasn't able to have any influence on what the expenditures

were.

I'm very curious about one of the expenditures from last year, and that

was this $30,000 special warrant for the minister's office. He avoided

mentioning that when he spoke. I hope that when he speaks at some point during

this debate on his estimates he'll tell us what that $30,000 was all about

and why he overexpended in his own office. He asked the farmers to hold the

line. He refused to go over his budget for things like income assurance. He

withholds payments that were due the preceding year, assumably because he doesn't

have the dollars in his budget to cover them. Yet when it comes to his own office,

he's prepared to over spend by $30,000 and ask for a special warrant. It

seems to me that if the minister really had the interests of the agricultural

community at heart, he would curtail his own expenditures in his office a bit,

and if he had to ask for special warrants, he would ask for those special warrants

to cover some of the financial programs that are so essential to the farm community,

such as farm income assurance, instead of hanging onto those dollars until after

the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Quite

honestly, the minimal amount that he has for farm income assurance this

year is going to be pretty well eaten up by last year's debts. It seems

to me that there is something like $17 million that has to be paid for

last year's beef insurance. Then we have apples, probably $10 million,

soft fruit $3 million, hogs $3 million, berries and greenhouse

vegetables another $1 million apiece — say $35 million that you re

really going to owe, Mr. Minister, out of $21 million that you have in

estimates. You're going to be overexpended on farm income assurance by

$14 million. Now you may be able to make up $6 million of that out of

the so-called interest reimbursement program, of which you say you're

going to spend $12 million, unless you change your tune and you won't

spend. You're still going to have a deficit on farm income assurance.

That means, I assume, that once again you will hang in there and not

make those payments when they're due, but make the farmers wait — make

them go out and borrow the dollars at high interest rates to keep up

their cash flow, when really the money is owed to them by this ministry

in a legitimate insurance scheme. It seems to me to be very sloppy

budgeting. If I can get those figures, I'm sure the ministry can get

them. I would challenge the minister to correct me if I'm wrong on

those figures, but it seems to me that he is going to be very short on

the dollars he has in his budget for farm income assurance.

talked a lot about his shared programs, and I have a couple of

questions for him about those programs. I have a question for him

particularly on the ARDSA program, which he talked about. My

understanding is that that agreement expires in July of this year.

There was a maximum allowance for $60 million — shared dollars.

According to the figures that the minister gave just a few minutes ago,

which agree with my figures, something like $48 million maximum will be

committed prior to that time. That means that we've got $12 million —

12 million 50-cent dollars — going down the tube if that program

expires at the end of July, because we will no more be able to initiate

programs under that ARDSA plan. That $12 million that we could have had

— 50-cent dollars, $6 million from the federal government and $6

million from the provincial government.... If this government is not

prepared to put that up, and I don't see it anywhere in the budget,

then we're going to lose those 50-cent dollars for good farm programs

as the minister has outlined; he's gone into great detail about them.

I'm sure that there are those other programs that we could well have

initiated which would have ensured that we got full advantage from

those programs.

When the minister talks about ARDSA,

sometimes he mentions that the feds contribute their 50 percent. When

he talks about crop insurance he says it's a shared program, but I

think if we look closely at it we'll see that a much bigger share

[ Page 7768 ]

contributed by the federal government than by the provincial

government. My figures show that of the $2.6 million that was paid out,

something like $2.3 million came from the feds and $0.3 million from

this government. Perhaps that explains why when Mr. Whelan was in

Victoria not so long ago he failed to notify this minister. It was

interesting to note that this minister said he was very hurt by the

fact that Mr. Whelan hadn't got in touch with him. Maybe that's why;

maybe we should give a little more credit to Mr. Whelan where credit is

due.

I believe my time is up. Perhaps the minister would like to respond to some of those points.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't comment on the growth in the industry. I did

last year and then for the next hour or so heard all the failings of

the industry, so this year I didn't quote from Agri-facts .

The statistics indicate that though the farms may be the same in

number, some 20,800, we've seen increases in the numbers of acres of

farmland under cultivation, which have gone up to 2.05 million acres,

up 20,000 acres from last year. I can tell you that we've seen

substantial increases in milk sales by farmers. We've seen substantial

increase in poultry sales — 112.8 million pounds in 1981, compared to

104.4 million pounds in 1980.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

have seen increased activity in a number of other areas: vegetable

receipts, honey production, in the number of head of cattle, and in hog

numbers, etc. I just want to show that it is a growth industry. I agree

with the member that the margins are tightening for agriculture, but

that is no different than other sectors of our economy. I don't think

you can solve a problem with the economy by throwing money at it. That

is not going to solve the problem; it is only going to increase the

problem in the long term.

We have attempted in the

provincial budget to come forward with some amendments to allow for

some relief to the farm community. I think of the tax-exempt items that

the Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget. We looked at what we

did with the insurance for farm vehicles whereby they could be insured

under a fleet program. That assisted in offsetting some of their

increased costs with regard to insurance. As I said earlier, over 60

percent of my budget goes into my financial programs. That doesn't

necessarily mean that over 60 Percent of my budget is going to subsidy

or support programs but rather to financial programs that will help the

farmer become more productive, protect him against high interest rates

to some extent or protect him against depressed market conditions. We

have a combination of programs that provide assistance to the farm

community.

The member states that Treasury Board never gives

me any more money for subsidy programs. In the number of years that

I've had this portfolio, all I've heard the agricultural critic and her

colleagues stand up and say is: "Give more money out in subsidy

programs." At the same time she says we should get it from the

marketplace. I don't think we disagree on whether we should get it from

the marketplace, but it seems that the only solution the opposition has

is to throw more money at the problem, and it just isn't going to work.

Looking

at the interest reimbursement program, there is no other industry that

gets relief such as the farm community gets. We have maintained that

that program will stay at I percent below prime. The agricultural

community recognize that fact. When interest rates started to fluctuate

back in 1979, we spread the amendment to that program over two years.

The farm politician forgets the discussions we had at that time and

tends to say: "We need more money."

Dealing with the Farm

Income Assurance Fund, we have attempted to index a number of factors

in the formula in consultation with the Federation of Agriculture and

the commodity groups they represent. I think it is fair to say that we

have the best program in Canada. It is a realistic program that allows

for a fair amount of protection against the depressed marketplace. You

can't take all the risk out of farming. It is no different than any

other industry. The good operators have dealt with the issue of

increased interest rates. We have had a number of cases where we can

see the borrowings of farmers become consolidated and reduced because

the farm manager recognized that there is a high cost to borrowing. As

a result he has possibly consolidated a number of his loans or he has

paid off where he has been able to to cut down his debt service. This

is no different from what this government is trying to do with our

restraint program — trying to live within our means.

This

government is here to support the agricultural industry in its

expansion and growth, but you can't have it in such a way that it is

just a constant shovelling of the money out of the back of the truck

like the opposition did between 1973 and 1975 when the economy

throughout Canada and the rest of the world was on the upswing. In that

period of time the economy of British Columbia was going straight

downhill.

We have maintained our programs. We have worked

with the agricultural community to make sure that stability is

maintained in this prime industry. I can go into other things that

we've done — the 50 percent classification for land within the ALR with

regard to school tax purposes. We provided that relief. The opposition

didn't recognize that impact on the farm community back in 1973-75 when

they brought in the agricultural land reserve.

The member

mentioned bankruptcies on farms. The latest figure we had in British

Columbia in 1981 was five out of 20,800 reported farms. The stability

appears still to be there, Madam Member.

With regard to one

or two of the other items you mentioned.... You commented on special

warrants with regard to salary costs in my office. In my.minister's

office I expanded the number of clerical and typing staff by one. I am

advised that out of that $30,000, there was about $6,000 not spent.

With

regard to farm income assurance, the premiums that are paid in, as you

know, are in a five-year moving average. In some cases those premiums

paid by the farm community are lagging behind the amount of indemnity.

As a result, we are paying additional funds as opposed to increasing

the premiums substantially to the farmer in any one year.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

last item is ARDSA. Yes, it expires in July 1982. I have discussed this

matter with the Hon. Herb Gray, the minister responsible for DREE and

the subagreement known as ARDSA, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to

extend the term of that five-year agreement for another year in order

for us to carry on with the good work that that program does.

[ Page

7769 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the

information on ARDSA. I hope that he is able to extend it, and I'm

pleased to note that he is moving in that direction. I don't see funds

in the budget for that, but perhaps he can tell me where that will fit

in. Just in passing, I would like to say it is very difficult this year

to relate the specific expenditures from last year's bookkeeping system

over to this year's bookkeeping system. I might just say that I'm

wondering whether or not this particular very lengthy and detailed

document that the Minister of Finance gave us, with all the various

programs accounted for, constitutes an official part of your estimates.

Maybe the minister could just nod his head. Is that an official part

where the breakdown is shown? The reason I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is

that the funds shown for the income assurance program in that book

appear to be extremely limited; they're not anywhere near $17 million,

and I suspect it's an error. But I believe that this is the estimate

book that we're discussing, and I would hope that that backup material

shows, as I read it, a much larger amount of dollars for farm income

assurance. I would suspect that that is totally in error.

Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you deal again with the

marketplace and say that you can't just throw money at a problem and

that we have the best farm income assurance scheme — or stabilization

scheme, as you called it — of anywhere in Canada. Well, first of all,

it's a different kind of scheme. It's not just a straight grant or

stabilization scheme; it's an insurance scheme. Sure, the government

contributes towards that, as does the producer, but it is an insurance

scheme. I would point out that we are the only province in Canada that

has an agricultural land reserve. The farm income assurance scheme and

the agricultural land reserve were companion pieces of legislation, and

we have pointed this out year after year as your estimates have been

discussed, Mr. Minister — that they were and are companion pieces of

legislation, and that you can't judge one without the other, and that

if you destroy one or make it less than viable, then you also destroy

the other.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that as we observe and

as many of farm community members observed, it appears that the

throttling of the farm income assurance program may well be

deliberately designed and undertaken to put pressure on the farm

community and to destroy the concept of the agricultural land reserve.

That land reserve was brought into being under a great storm of protest

and a lot of misunderstanding. The thing that is amazing — not amazing

really, because people are smart enough to recognize a good thing when

they see it — is that the public now recognizes that as landmark

legislation, that it was greatly needed, extremely important and one of

the best pieces of legislation to be put on the books of any parliament

in North America. That's generally accepted.

This government

has continued to tamper with that legislation and to tamper with the

reserve. The first and most critical thing is the amendment to the act

which has allowed for direct appeals to cabinet. I would point out, Mr.

Chairman — and I note that you're going to tell me that I can't talk

about legislation, but I'm talking about the Land Commission, which is

a responsibility of this minister — that at the last B.C. Tree Fruits

convention they passed a resolution which said: "Whereas the present

provincial government continues to fine-tune the ALR and

whereas the

Land Commission has been rendered less effective through the use of

cabinet appeal, therefore

be it resolved that this 1982 convention

request that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture press the provincial

government to allow the B.C. Land Commission to be the final body of

appeal." That was passed by the B.C. Tree Fruits convention in 1982 and

forwarded to the Federation of Agriculture. The Federation of

Agriculture has joined with the agrologists and a great many different

organizations and has pressured the government to change this so it

gets out of the political arena. The government has consistently

neglected or refused to do this. They keep telling us that the cabinet

has to be the last appeal. There is provision for appeal as long as you

don't have a unanimous decision of the Land Commission and as long as a

local government is supportive.

This particular

section

makes it possible to appeal without any of those things. It has become

a political appeal. It is so designed, and so used in secret, behind

the closed doors of cabinet, and it has been used in many instances as

a political tool to reward friends. That is how it has been used, and

there are many examples.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

One moment, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and

remind the hon. member who is now speaking that in Committee of the

Whole and during estimates debate we are not allowed to discuss

legislation or the need for it or past legislation. The administrative

actions of the ministry are what is open to debate. I'm sure the hon.

member is aware of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I'm discussing his administrative actions, inasmuch as he is

the minister responsible for the agricultural land reserve. I simply

had to give that little bit of background on the legislation to lead me

into the next area that I want to talk about, and that is what has been

happening with the agricultural land reserve.

I think that

the weather-vane in the preservation of the land reserve has probably

been the Gloucester property, because that is one that has been going

on for so long and so much public interest has been focused on that

particular piece of property. We have seen the use of the amended

legislation to remove that piece of land from the land reserve. Then we

saw the Premier come in with a freeze on that development. It was a

very knee-jerk reaction because of the public sentiment that had just

sprung up over that particular piece of land coming out of the reserve.

We saw the chairman of the Land Commission resign over that. Then we

had court case upon court case. We had a case brought by Gloucester

against the government. They filed for loss of revenue because of the

freeze. We had the thing referred to the supreme court to see whether

or not the cabinet ministers would be required to testify in that case.

The day before the supreme court decision was made public....

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I rise under standing order 43. I'd like the Chair to

tell me what this line of debate has to do with the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair is aware of standing order 43. The committee is advised that

discussion of any minister's estimates deals totally with the

administrative actions of the ministry. I'm sure the member is quite

aware of the type

[ Page 7770 ]

and substance of debate that can take place in Committee of Supply.

MRS. WALLACE: It would seem that the member for Omineca is not aware that the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will decide points of order.

MRS. WALLACE:

I thought you were finished with your ruling, and I didn't intend to

correct the Chair at all. I just wanted to say to the member for

Omineca, for his information, 'that the Agricultural Land Commission is

an administrative responsibility of this minister — perhaps he was not

aware of that.

To continue, Mr. Chairman, almost at the same

time the Supreme Court ruling came down, we had the freeze lifted. When

that freeze was lifted, I wrote and asked for a copy of the

environmental study which was supposedly done and which persuaded the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to lift the freeze. Strangely

enough, when I got this, I found that that particular study was

undertaken by the people who owned the property. That was the study on

which basis the minister lifted the freeze. I would like to be in a

position where I could do the study on any particular item that related

to me and be the one who presented the so-called "facts" that decided

the minister to make a move. Then we have a very strange situation:

Gloucester Properties dropped their court case once the freeze was

lifted.

So that's the sort of thing that has happened under

this minister, who has no commitment to the preservation of

agricultural land — certainly not a sufficient commitment to go to

cabinet or to ELUC and stand up for the preservation of agricultural

land based on its capability to produce food. He hasn't the integrity

to present that case in the face of the kinds of political situations

that this government gets itself into. Of course, the release of that

land, providing it is rezoned — and it may or may not be rezoned.... We

now have to lean on local governments rather than the Agricultural Land

Commission, and I think the minister is remiss in not moving in a

direction that allows the Land Commission to be responsible and to make

decisions based on the capacity....

The kind of strange

reasons that minister gave for letting that land out — that it was

rolling, that a railway went by it, that it was close to the American

border — would apply to any land almost anywhere. Those are the kinds

of reasons that the man this province is trusting to preserve our

agricultural land for future generations is bringing to this House as

the reasons why that hand was released. Then we have the Minister of

Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) saying that there was no evidence

submitted. How can he be so short in his memory? Certainly the Land

Commission's testimony was strongly in favour, based on the categories

of that land, and yet the minister doesn't even remember that. It was

so strong and the chairman of the Land Commission was so upset that he

resigned. Then we have the Minister of Energy quoting from a report

that drew certain conclusions. The person who did the land study was

suing the person who had written those conclusions, because they had

nothing to do with his study — they didn't relate. Yet the Minister of

Energy uses that. This is an example of the kind of situation that this

Minister of Agriculture has let that government get into relative to

the preservation of agricultural land. That's the situation as a result

of this government — political payoffs. Certainly there was political

involvement there.

Then we go to the Spetifore property.

It's another one where the testimony indicated that the land was good

agricultural land. The experts thought.... I'm not about to say what is

or is not good agricultural land. I don't think any minister in the

cabinet or any lay person should do that. That is a job that trained

soils scientists should do.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Absolutely. It should be non-political an agrologist who is trained in

soils science, not one who has been trained in feed production for

livestock or something like that. Let's make sure that the people

telling us what is a good piece of agricultural land are people who are

trained in that specific skill — with no political interference,

without any bias written in the report, and the report based strictly

on technical classifications. That has to be the way we go.

This

government and that minister have moved in exactly the opposite

direction. Just last week my colleague from Vancouver East raised in

the House the kind of windfall profits that a friend of the government

stands to gain — $190 million as a result of this kind of political

decision. I can't understand why that minister and that cabinet insist

on putting themselves in such a vulnerable position. Really, if they

have a commitment to the preservation of agricultural land, they would

get out of this hotseat that they've gotten themselves into and leave

it to the experts, leave it to the Land Commission, take out the

political interference. It would be much better for them, and it would

certainly be much better for the agricultural land, that

fast-diminishing commodity that we have here in British Columbia.

Instead of the Land Commission being allowed to do its job, as it tried

to do in the Gloucester thing and in the Spetifore case, we have

government moving in. Now the only thing that's saving either one of

them is local zoning by regional governments. That's in the face of the

best advice from the B.C. agrologists and the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, and from a great number of organizations right across this

province. In the case of Gloucester these were the United Church, the

chamber of commerce and the Women's Institute. I've heard none of them

withdraw that position; they are committed to the preservation of

agricultural land.

Of course, there's the Moffat property.

Now I have nothing against Mr. Moffat; he's probably a very fine

gentleman. But let me tell you, this government has put him in a very

awkward position. Whether he asked for it or not I don't know and I'm

not prepared to say. But the very fact that this government has removed

that land from the reserve, over the heads of cabinet, over the heads

of everybody, when he stands to gain the kinds of dollars he stands to

gain from that, to do a development in an area where there's lots of

land for development, the same as there is in the lower Fraser

Valley.... There's enough land for industrial development until the

year 2020 or something, yet this is the situation. These are the kinds

of arguments that are very difficult for that minister and that

government to answer to the people of British Columbia. It's

impossible, because it savours very strongly of political payola.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I take extreme exception to such an accusation. I would suggest that the member withdraw.

[ Page 7771 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point is very well taken. The Journals will show that only about

three weeks ago the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was asked to withdraw that statement

when he made it in the House. I would ask the hon. member, if she has

imputed any dishonourable motive to another member of this House, that

she withdraw.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm not imputing any

dishonourable motive to any individual member. What I'm saying is that

this particular method of dealing with agricultural exclusion leaves

the cabinet vulnerable to the inference that there is political payola.

If the term "political payola" offends anyone in this House, I will

certainly withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The hon. member continues on vote 5.

MRS. WALLACE:

I've spoken of the Spetifore property, the Gloucester property and the

Moffat property. There was the Wenger property at Windermere. There was

to be a provision for them to have a gravel pit, and only the Land

Commission's use of the Soil Conservation Act prevented it from going

ahead. Everywhere we look, this sort of situation is occurring.

The

minister talks about fine tuning. Last year was the first time there

were any dollars in his budget for fine tuning. I wonder how many

dollars he's actually putting towards fine tuning this year. That's a

program that should have been undertaken, and would have been

undertaken, from 1975 on because that was the whole intent of how the

legislation was to work, but there were no dollars. It's a major

undertaking to complete that fine tuning, and it has to be done by

technical people without political interference.

I have

never argued with decisions of the Land Commission, even though

sometimes I'm a little concerned about some of them. The Land

Commission has done a reasonably good job. I think they're trying to do

a job. How much it's undermined by that minister I don't know; I hope

not at all. I hope the minister isn't interfering in their activity.

They have to be let alone to do a job, they have to have the funds, and

they have to have the people available with the knowledge and expertise

to do that job. Unfortunately it's not a high priority with this

government, but it certainly is of grave concern to me.

have to reiterate that the land reserve, as everyone knows, has caused

the farming community some difficulties. They have been asked to

shoulder a financial reduction. They no longer can do just as they like

with that land. They're quite prepared to accept that, but they want

the assurance that the companion legislation will be in place to do the

job it was intended to do: ensure viability. That's not happening under

this ministry or this government. The Land Commission is being eroded

by the financial squeeze on the farm community, and the tighter that

squeeze gets, the more pressure there will be to take land out of the

reserve for economic needs. Not that the farmer wants to do that.

Usually a farmer is a farmer and wants to keep that land in

cultivation. He has a dedication to producing things. But through lack

of dedication by this government to the companion legislation and to

the agricultural land reserve, the farmer is in the position where he,

as well as the developer who has hung on, is being forced to influence

the government — in many cases they're successful, apparently — to have

that land removed so that those windfall profits will accrue to them.

They're profits that are completely out of line with the productivity

value of that land. The farmer, in the meantime, is faced with the

escalating costs that result and with a declining viability in the farm

income assurance program.

This minister tells us that we

can't throw money at a problem to make it better. This is an instance

where a good insurance scheme needs all the dollars it can get to

ensure that we maintain the farm community and our agricultural land.

It's a difficult situation. because we are not prepared at this time to

buy everything the farmer could produce. We have very efficient farmers

here. We have some of the best land in the world, let alone in Canada.

and the best climate. We can produce far more than the public is

prepared to consume, as long as we're bringing in unlimited — not

unlimited, but a great many — imports. It's a situation we want to

support. Surely that government wants to support it, because sooner or

later — it’s going to be sooner than later — those imports are going to

become limited. Our population is going to grow. We're going to need

every acre and farmer to produce the kind of food we will want to

consume as our population and needs grow, and our imports decline.

That

minister is charged with the responsibility of protecting not only this

generation, but future generations. It's a very important

responsibility. I believe he hasn't realized how important it is. I

believe he has not recognized that, and has not been able to convince

cabinet that we need the kind of dollars now in the agricultural budget

to support the agricultural community so that they can retain their

viability and our agricultural land and to have them around to produce

for future generations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To respond

to some of the issues raised by the member. she dealt with ARDSA in her

comments. If we get an extension of the agreement for another year, we

will. of course, include the additional funding that is required in

next year's budget. What we have in this year's budget for 1982-83 is

sufficient to carry us through this year and then we'd amend or add to

it next year in the 1983-84 budget.

To talk about the

Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.... The

member mentioned that &se are companion pieces of legislation. I

have to tell you that the Farm Income Assurance Act was brought in as

companion legislation. They only had six programs in place at that

time, if I recall. If you had done your homework.... You said to the

farmer: "We're going to treat you fairly. We're going to lock your land

up in a reserve, but will give you a stability program or an assistance

program." Why didn't you do it right the first time? You gave them six

programs and that's all. You left the rest of them out to dry. You

couldn't have cared less until they brought pressure and you had to

respond. The only trouble was that at that particular point in time I

was the Minister of Agriculture and Food and I had to pick up where you

left off. I brought several other farm income assurance programs into

being to assist the agricultural community with regard to what you call

that companion program.

In that legislation you also

included gravel pits in the agricultural land reserve. You included

land that had never been farmed. You just dropped it, as I said before,

like a leaden blanket. You just dropped it on the whole province

without any foresight as to the damage you were doing.

[ Page 7772 ]

The

member talks about why cabinet does not leave it to the "experts." This

member across the way knows very well that you can have two agrologists

and two soils specialists come up with two different answers. You can

have situations where you have a widespread agricultural capability on

one piece of land. I'm quoting from one particular application that

went through the system all the way through to the appeal. You end up

with a description of some 500 acres as follows: "101 acres, class 2

and 3." But what are the subclassifications for classes 2 and 3? It's

not like 101 acres of class 2 and 3, neat, tidy and in a square. What

you have is a combination of soil factors. You have other factors

within that class 2 land; you can have excess water or undesirable soil

structure within that class 2 and class 3. You have other factors that

might deal with salts within the soil, stoniness, topography, excess

water, moisture deficiency and all those details. So when the

politician grabs the application for the appeal with the experts'

advice, they neglect to say that it's not all neat and tidy. They'll

attack 500 acres as though it were a nice, neat and tidy piece of

property and not get into the detail that the soils specialist gets

into where we have differences of opinion.

In most of those cases that the member brought up.... Let's

take the Delta properties. In all that land, most of it was for hay

production, not food production, because of its limitations. The Moffat

property has never been farmed and probably never will be farmed,

because it's adjacent to the Fraser River and the only access to it is

through a residential subdivision. Eighty percent of Gloucester

Properties has never been farmed. It's not a neat and tidy 624 acres,

or whatever it is; it's some 30 individual parcels of land that could

be sold as 30 parcels. There are 20 acres of pondage on that particular

property.

The member goes on to say that her comments

represented the agricultural community. She neglects to say that one of

the vice-presidents of the Federation of Agriculture said very strongly

that the Delta property — or as you call it the Spetifore property —

was not agricultural land, and he had farmed in that area for years.

You can have two agrologists just as you have two lawyers. You can have

two differences of opinion when you look at soil structure.

You

talk about developers. Developers have hung on in the hopes of doing

certain things. The Spetifore Delta property was owned by one family

since the 1930s. Is that a developer holding on? No way. It is a man

who paid taxes and whose family paid taxes. It was not agriculturally

viable and therefore he asked to have it released. On top of that he

wanted to make arrangements whereby his community — the community of

Delta, which supported the application — would benefit by getting

parkland adjacent to the residential property, and you denied him that.

The people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District played politics.

That is exactly what they did, because when that application came

forward for appeal, what happened? It was recommended by the GVRD. Then

we analyze it, debate and hear all the flak from you people over there

saying it was political. What happens? We make that decision only to

see politics being played once again. Never mind the man who has

invested in that land and whose family has owned it since the 1930s.

Play with him! This is politics you people play, and you love it, but

you don't care about the individual. All those farmers out there know

that. They know you play politics and forget about the individual

farmer.

Was Gloucester Properties a developer hanging on?

How long have Gloucester Properties owned that land, Madam Member? A

year? No, they acquired that property — I don't have the exact date in

front of me — back in the 1960s. How long did Mr. Moffat own that land

in Prince George which has never been farmed?

Politics are

played with the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land

reserve. It is frustrating. I guess we could — as the member says —

take the easy way out and walk away from the problem. As a government

we could pass it on to the "experts." We could pass it on to some

little committee or commission and stand back, rub our hands and say:

"Well, it's not our problem. It's their problem and their decision. We

won't take the responsibility." Someone once said: "If you can't stand

the heat, get out of the kitchen." This government is going to take

that heat when it has to, but our decisions aren't political. Our

decisions are based on analyzing the facts that are put forward to us

to determine what is the fairest and most honest way to deal with a

problem. Any of these appeals that come before the Environment and Land

Use Committee are not black and white. Those are the "gray" areas that

we have to deal with. Even the agrologists in the Land Commission will

tell you that there are areas in which, with a cost, they could go one

way or another, but they aren't easily resolved issues. I commend my

colleagues in the past, and hopefully in the future; we have to address

this question and deal with it at our level, because that is what we

are elected to do.

MR. MACDONALD: In secrecy.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

There he is. The great learned lawyer has finally arrived. The original

NDP legislation, interestingly enough, said that in 1973 the

legislation allowed the cabinet the right to exclude land from the

agricultural land reserve on its own. You know, it was political,

behind closed doors in the cabinet chambers. Don't be so high and

mighty, Mr. Member. This is just to give you some information, I guess.

We are going back in history. Maybe we sometimes forget we are dealing

with estimates for 1982-83.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

minister makes a very good point. We are dealing with the estimates of

the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his administrative

responsibilities. I would ask the minister to remember that when he

continues his debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I certainly

will attempt to remember that. I want to bring out a parallel, though,

in regard to this government's administration of the agricultural land

reserves.

Looking back, in 1973 the then government, the

NDP, purchased 726 acres of land on Tilbury Island in Delta for an

industrial park that was dedicated as prime farmland, class 2 and class

3. That is not far, I don't think, from other properties in Delta.

Madam Member, I would have thought that you would have handed in your

membership card over that issue. I would have thought that you would

have raved over the fact that that government at that time was doing

away with class 2 and class 3 land for industrial purposes. In 1975, by

cabinet order-in-council, 458 acres of potential agricultural land in

Kamloops, known as the Molson hop farm property, was removed for use as

an industrial park. What great support for the agricultural community!

It is all political on that side of

[ Page 7773 ]

the

House. They talk a good story, but they knew, when they were in

government, that you had to deal with some of these issues in a manner

that was in the public good, also recognizing the fairness of the

system.

I guess we'll go through the exercise, through the

next few days, if not longer, of dealing with the Agricultural Land

Commission and the method used to determine whether or not land is

agricultural. I'll stand by the remarks I made earlier when I opened

the debate, that when we deal with these issues and attempt to evaluate

all the input — and there's a substantial amount of it — as to whether

land is capable of agriculture or whether it has a use in the public

good, there is no political interference or political payoff, or

whatever you want to call it. The people involved, the staff involved,

the land commissioners involved. are all attempting to do the job to

the best of their ability. I'm proud of the efforts that have been made

while I've been Minister of Agriculture and Food, and of the amount of

fine tuning that we have done.

MR. KING: To pay off your friends.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke says, "a payoff for your friends."

I'll just consider where that remark came from, and carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Sorry, I didn't hear that. If that in fact was said, I will have to ask

the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to withdraw. That type of

imputation to another hon. member was earlier ruled to be unacceptable.

MR. KING: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thank the member for his withdrawal.

The

fact is that 98 percent of the land removed from the agricultural land

reserve since 1974 has been recommended for removal by the Agricultural

Land Commission. This means that the decisions and recommendations of

the Land Commission have been supported by the Environment and Land Use

Committee or by cabinet for all but 2 percent of the area. Also, since

that time we have added 82, 374 acres to the agricultural land reserve

on the recommendation of the Land Commission. As I said earlier, the

issues that are not easily resolved are the ones that attract the

attention and that unfortunately attract the politician into the fray

as well. I find that unfortunate. I've lost a bit of sleep trying to

figure out how else we can address the question. I think the approach

we have taken is one that recognizes our responsibility as politicians.

I don't feel it's fair or proper for some appointed body to delegate

that responsibility just because you can't stand a little heat from

time to time. We can back up and justify any of the decisions we've

made. We have in the past and we'll do so in the future.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman. the minister says "we can justify any decisions we've

made with respect to taking land out of the land reserve;" and I'm sure

they can. By selective memory, by stretching the facts, by ignoring the

facts and using fiction, you can justify anything you want to justify.

can recall, in the history of the province of British Columbia, when a

member stood on this side of the House and said: "In the granting of

tree-farm licences, money talks." I think that could quite

appropriately be said of the removal of land from Land Commission

reserves. I can't understand or imagine any justification for removing

certain lands from the land reserves other than that same charge that

money talks. I'm not suggesting that the minister has taken any money

for any of this, Mr. Chairman. before you start getting concerned, but

I can't imagine any justification for having taken the Gloucester land

out of the reserve, other than that the owners of that land paid money

into the Social Credit education fund. Nothing else makes any sense.

There may be some other explanation. We certainly haven't heard it to

date from the minister. or from any of the other people on the

government side speaking about the removal of the Gloucester land

estates from the agricultural land reserve.

That's just one

of the examples. The minister says that in 98 percent of the removals

from the land reserve they followed the recommendations of the Land

Commission. He didn't bother to tell you that the Land Commission

unanimously fought for two years to keep that Gloucester land in the

ALR. He didn't bother to tell you that that particular commission "as a

group hand-picked by this administration, who in 1975 campaigned on the

promise that they would get rid of the Land Commission. The did get rid

of it. They couldn't throw it out completely. because they knew the

community wouldn't stand for it, but they, appointed their own people

to itpeople who would support their policy of, getting rid of the ALR.

In spite of picking their own people and putting them on that

commission. When those people sat down and listened to the staff

members, when they saw the evidence of what this administration wanted

to do to the ALR, even those handpicked Socred supporters couldn't

stand the idea of removing these lands from the ALR, People who

bothered to pay, any attention to what was going on in the province,

who recognized the importance of agricultural land in this province, of

which we have so little. and who listened to the evidence. reacted in

the way they should react, as good British Columbians. Unfortunately,

their unanimous recommendations were ignored by this cabinet. What

possible explanation can there be for it, other than that the owners of

those lands somehow or other rewarded the party in office in this

province today?

The minister said that a leaden blanket was

dropped over this province in the winter of 197273. Mr. Chairman, he

knows better. He's not telling you the whole truth when he tells you

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: I didn't say, he was lying. I said that he was not telling you the whole truth when he told you that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A member cannot impute any dishonourable motive to another member. I'm sure the hen. member appreciates that.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm simply saying that he misinformed you and that he did

not tell you the whole truth. I'm not saying that anything he said was

in error or that he was lying to you; I'm simply saying he left out

certain facts — and he did, Mr. Chairman. He knows that when we imposed

the land freeze in December 1972. It extended only to those lands which

people had been claiming was farmland when they were paying their

property taxes. and to lands which had already been zoned as

agricultural land by various

[ Page 7774 ]

municipal

and regional district authorities. That's the only land that was

covered by that socalled "leaden blanket" in December 1972. Had he told

you that as well as what he told you, then he would have been telling

you the whole truth, but that would not have helped his case, Mr.

Chairman. He was trying to persuade you that we did something wrong —

that I, as a Minister of Agriculture, did something wrong in those days

in imposing that freeze on the development of agricultural land. It

would have weakened his case had he told you that part — that only land

that people were already claiming was farmland when they were paying

their property taxes was included in that freeze in 1972. You see, that

would have weakened his case. He didn't tell you the whole truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting he did it accidentally?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair cannot accept one member implying that another

hon. member has been less than honourable. I so advise the member now

speaking and would ask the member to remember that our parliamentary

rules urge courtesy and moderation in debate.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, the minister said, in talking about the Land Commission,

that he — and presumably he is speaking for the government — is pleased

with the work of the Land Commission. He had good reason to be pleased

with the work of the original Land Commission. They were carefully

picked individuals, people who were recommended by the community as a

whole.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like Bob Williams.

MR. STUPICH: Bob Williams was not a member of the Land Commission, Mr. Chairman. I heard that name thrown across the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary Runka.

MR. STUPICH:

Gary Runka was not a member of the original Land Commission, Mr.

Chairman — I hear that name as well. If these people want to help me

make my speech, I don't mind having that kind of assistance, Mr.

Chairman, but again they are either showing their ignorance or are

trying to fool you. Gary Runka was not a member of the original Land

Commission, nor was Bob Williams. The original Land Commission was a

very good commission, Mr. Chairman — one dedicated to the principle of

saving farmland.

The minister boasts about the land that has been added to the ALR since he

has been in office, since he has had responsibility for the Land Commission.

Mr. Chairman, as Will Rogers once said, the reason that agricultural land is

so important is that they ain't making any more of it. He hasn't created

any farmland. They have extended the boundaries in some areas, but they haven't

added any new farmland to the inventory of farmland in the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Chairman, they have black topp