1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3899 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Social assistance rolls. Mr. Barrett –– 3900

Hiring practices of Quintette Coal. Hon. Mr. McClelland replies –– 3901

Automatized telephone soliciting. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3902

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

Schroeder)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 3902

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

University of Victoria Special Appropriation Act, 1984 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3919

Mr. Stupich –– 3920

Mr. Cocke –– 3920

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3920

Mrs. Dailly –– 3921

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3921

Appendix –– 3922

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is with some sorrow that I rise today to

inform the House of the passing this weekend of Ms. Phyllis Young, who was the

MLA for Vancouver–Little Mountain between 1972 and 1975. Ms. Young, the first

Minister of Consumer Affairs during our administration from 1972-75, was one

of those rare MLAs who was able to reach across all sections of our society

and touch people's lives in a way that will be fondly remembered by those

who came in contact with her. It was an untimely death, as I suppose all deaths

are. Ms. Young loved this institution, loved her work as a trade unionist and

loved her job as a cabinet minister. She served the people of this province

well, and she will be sadly missed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the

Leader of the Opposition in expressing, from our side and personally,

shock and sadness at the sudden and early passing of Ms. Young. She was

a worthy adversary in the Legislature. I knew her; I was on the

opposition side. She did her job in this House and in her portfolio in

her own inimitable style, which was to forge straight ahead. But

outside the House, when the heat of political debate was over, she was

always friendly to those of us in the opposition. She will be missed.

It is untimely, and I associate myself fully with the remarks of the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish, the Chair will undertake to send the appropriate message.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming two constituents from Merritt, Lorn Nichols and his wife Marian.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a large crowd

in the galleries today, and among them are 12 members of the Second

Douglas Scout Troop, who are based in the municipality of Saanich and

the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Their scoutmaster is Mr.

Rick Turley. I trust that all members will welcome them on my behalf.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I think it would be

unfortunate if we let introductions and comments pass at this first

sitting following the great success recorded by the University of

Victoria Vikings, who "solidified their position as one of the great

amateur dynasties in Canadian sports history" over the weekend by

winning an unprecedented fifth consecutive Canadian university men's

basketball championship in Halifax. I think a number of us who spend

time in this area have watched the Vikings over the years, and perhaps

it will be possible for them to be invited to this chamber at some

point in the near future.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make welcome a

lady from my constituency, a director of our association and one who also serves

the province in many other capacities, Mrs. Isabelle Chisholm.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow for everybody in this

House it will be the first day of spring. But today it's the first and

the continuing day of spring for the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr.

Pelton), and I'd like all members to wish him a very, very happy

birthday.

MR. STRACHAN: My best wishes to the senator.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today I'm pleased to introduce, from

Prince George, the Hildebrandt family, Ken, Nina, Jason and Kenny, with

Mr. Glen Whitehead; and the Allen family, Derrick, Marjorie and David.

Will the House please welcome these guests of mine today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to welcome

to the House today Bill Calder, along with Diane and their two

children, Debbie and Mike. Along with Debbie and Mike is their friend

Kevin Doll. I'd like the House to welcome them this afternoon.

Also in the gallery is the former mayor of Cranbrook and current

chairman of the East Kootenay Community College board, Ty Colgur. I'd

like the House to join with me in welcoming him as well.

Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery is Mr. Stuart Lang, president of

Crestbrook Forest Industries. I would like the House to especially

welcome Mr. Lang, since his company has kept the doors of his operation

open in Cranbrook and the East Kootenays during the difficult time in

our economy. I want to assure him how much this House, the people of

Kootenay and British Columbia appreciate that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with

me in welcoming my constituency secretary Mrs. Haslam and her friend

and my friend Mrs. Ling, who are in the gallery today.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a fine

example of the kind of woman that helped this country of Canada and

B.C. Through success and adversity she has always managed to keep her

balance. She is a lady who never lost sight of the fact that you have

to live within your means, and she is a lady whose birthday it is today

— Mrs. W. Russell S. Fraser, my mother. Would the House please welcome

her.

MR. COCKE: I have been informed that we have two people in

the House today who have ringing in their ears. They are the Manitoba

House Leader, Mr. Anstett, and the opposition House Leader, Mr. Enns. I

would like the House to welcome them.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a young lady, Wendy Cooper from Surrey, who is visiting in the House today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it looks like everyone didn't go to Disneyland South on the first day of spring break.

I have some constituents who have travelled on the way from Langley

to come and visit with us today, the Macdonald family: Mr. Gene

Macdonald, his wife Annee, and their four children Erin, Shannon, Gene

and Angus. Gene Macdonald is the principal at D. W. Poppy Junior

Secondary School in Langley, and he is also a member of the Langley

Memorial

[ Page 3900 ]

Hospital board. I would like the House to make them welcome.

[2:15]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is John Ross,

the former mayor of Armstrong and currently a director of Okanagan

College. He is accompanied by his son Jarrett. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ROLLS

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources. Could she inform the House as to the number of people in

British Columbia who are now on social assistance, in terms of the last

time and date that she received the total from her ministry?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in order to be absolutely accurate, I will take that question as notice and bring the information back.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Could the minister give us a ballpark figure to the best of her recollection?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is no supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House

what percentage of citizens of this province now rely on social

assistance as their primary source of income?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, again, in order to be

accurate, I'd prefer to take the question as notice. A question such as

that, which requires specifics, can of course be placed on the order

paper, and specific answers could be provided.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the instruction from

the minister. I suppose the bills these people have to pay could be

placed on the order paper as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not she knows

that at the present time we have the largest number of people on

welfare in British Columbia — in relative terms as well as in whole

numbers — since the Great Depression.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware that

Canada has the greatest number of people on income assistance since the

Depression. I am also aware that there is very great difficulty in this

province for those who are on income assistance. It's been common

knowledge for some time in the province and in this nation — in fact,

in any part of the world where the world recession has taken its toll.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House

what specific action she has taken as a cabinet minister to alleviate

the acknowledged hardship to these people which she has spoken of? That

has been increased by the fact that some 91,000 British Columbians lost

their jobs last year alone. What specific action has she taken — or is

she taking — in her department to alleviate this hardship?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Leader of

the Opposition will appreciate that the Ministry of Human Resources'

responsibility is to provide assistance to those who find themselves in

such difficult circumstances, and we have done that with a very good

program. It is a program which has assisted our people to become

independent; rehabilitation services have been provided in order to get

them into a different train of work in some cases, or to upgrade their

education in other cases. But the basic commitment of this ministry is

to provide help in time of need.

The member did not ask what the government has done; he specifically

asked what the Ministry of Human Resources has done. Speaking in my

other capacity as minister responsible for rapid transit, many jobs

have been created through our new ALRT project. In fact it now reaches,

with the extension to Surrey, 7,500 man-years of work. If the member

wanted me to enlarge on that, or wanted any other members of our

government to be specific.... We certainly have, in direct jobs from

ALRT, 7,500, and in indirect, 7,500, for a total of 15,000 jobs created.

In British Columbia Place we have 40,000 construction jobs over a

20-year period on the drawing board and already in place; 16,082

part-time annual jobs have been created. In Expo 86 there will be a

total of 49,300 jobs created. The Ministry of Highways and

Transportation in the capital construction projects.... I would ask the

member to ask the question of those members responsible for northeast

and southeast coal, rail and highways expansion, and building

throughout the province. It's most effective, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: If things are so good, how come they're so bad?

I asked the minister what she has done specifically, as a minister,

to alleviate the situation of rapidly rising unemployment. I am pleased

to hear that the minister knows the numbers of all the jobs alleged to

be created by these projects, but I am at a loss to explain why the

minister can't tell us how many people are on welfare. I ask the

minister again: of the jobs created by the ALRT project, how many will

be taken by welfare recipients?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the

intimation left on the floor of this assembly by the words spoken by

the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, I did not say I did not

know the approximate number, but that I did not want to give a figure

which that member, outside of this House or in speeches in the next few

weeks, would then quote as being incorrect — or any other member of the

opposition.

Secondly, if the member, who has been in this House a very long

time, would analyze the responsibilities of the Minister of Human

Resources — and the question was asked of the Minister of Human

Resources.... The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it's

the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources to provide

services for senior citizens, for people who have to come to the

ministry for income assistance, for people who require Pharmacare

services and many other services. I know the member would not want me

to reiterate them on the floor of the House and waste the time of

question period. But he also knows that this minister is not

responsible, in this ministry, for job creation; it is responsible,

however, for assisting people who require rehabilitation to assist them

to have independence. This Ministry of Human Resources, I suggest

almost alone in Canada,

[ Page

3901 ]

has led the field in rehabilitation for income assistance recipients.

When the member, who himself has come out of the social worker

field, asks me to respond on how many on income assistance will find

jobs in the ALRT or any other project which the government has

initiated in this province, let me say that that either shows a

complete lack of understanding of social work in the province, or else

is an attempt by that member to try to embarrass this minister or this

ministry in some way. Mr. Speaker, I will not in any way.... I believe

that member does know that this ministry does assist people who are on

income assistance to find work, and also to become independent. Many

people come to us who have been in traditional jobs; they are being

trained to take other jobs when those have disappeared. Yes, we help

them in a temporary way.

What I don't believe any member of this House really understands in

a positive way is the turnover in income assistance in this province.

In fact, more than 50 percent of those who are under 25 years of age —

for which group we have recently made some changes — are only on income

assistance for one month; the balance of them, almost 80 percent of the

total, are off income assistance in two months. So the turnover is very

quick. We must be doing something right. We're finding jobs and getting

them into positions.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would never attempt to embarrass

the minister or the government. They're doing a far better job than I

could ever do, simply being there every day.

I ask my last question of the minister: in the light of the

statement made to this chamber that her department is attempting to

rehabilitate people who are on social assistance, can she explain why

the rehabilitation officers in her department will be redeployed as of

June 1 this year?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member will have to be more specific.

In July of last year we did make some announcements that our staff of

6,000 would be decreased by some 600. There are some rehabilitative

services within that. A very few will be placed elsewhere in the

government or elsewhere in the Ministry of Human Resources, or in some

cases they will not have their job. But that does not mean that our

rehabilitative services have been cancelled — nor will they be — any

more than it means that our war against child abuse is cancelled.

Thirteen members, some of whom were secretarial staff, are no longer in

the special team in the city of Vancouver. I know what the Leader of

the Opposition is attempting to do, but it won't wash. The facts stand

for themselves: we are rehabilitating people; we are getting them back

into the workstream. We are assisting all we can, because that is the

responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the minister this question, and I will repeat it.

At a time of high unemployment and after the minister informed this House that

rehabilitation officers are doing their job, why are the rehabilitation officers

being redeployed? Why are there fewer officers now and why are there going to

be fewer on June 1 when there are more people on welfare in this province than

since the Great Depression? Why?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member leaves the

impression that there are hundreds of rehabilitation officers being

redeployed from their positions. Of staff reductions that have already

taken place in the ministry's headquarters, including all of our

ministry's headquarters, there are one or two positions that have been

redeployed that come under the category of rehabilitation. So I don't

know if the member is making a case for two or three people, but I'd be

very glad to look into it if he is.

MR. BARRETT: I think you should.

[2:30]

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer a number

of questions that I took as notice about a week ago. The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) asked me a series of questions about the

hiring practices of Quintette Coal. I'm sorry he isn't in the House but

I know Hansard will be available to him.

He asked whether Quintette was hiring people from outside British

Columbia. I’ve had my ministry do exhaustive testing with Quintette and

with the ministry itself, and we've determined that it is not the

company's policy to hire outside of British Columbia. It is the

company's policy to hire British Columbians first. No recruitment has

taken place in eastern Canada or in any other part of Canada at this

time, nor does the company intend to if they can get their people from

British Columbia.

The mine presently employs 1,000 people, and about 75 percent of

those 1,000 are British Columbians. They expect to hire another 600

before the end of this calendar year. There will be a new recruiting

campaign started within the next couple of weeks. They'll be

advertising in B.C. newspapers for new employees. They're particularly

looking for heavy-duty mechanics, millwrights and industrial

electricians –– 600 more jobs to add to the list that was given by the

Minister of Human Resources.

One of the other questions from the member for North Island was

whether the minister was aware that there were many heavy equipment

operators and mechanics in British Columbia who have been refused

employment by Quintette Coal. I asked the member to provide me with

details and evidence of that, and at least to this point in time he has

not been able to do that. The company denies that and says it has hired

every suitable person who has applied.

The number of applicants has been drying up recently because it is

not easy to get people to take permanent jobs in remote mine locations.

The company's doing some other things to try to help that, including a

very generous housing policy where employees can get a house for a 3

percent deposit; they pay the going rate for the mortgage on the first

mortgage, but the company gives them a 7 percent second mortgage,

forgivable over five years, in an attempt to solve that problem.

In answer to the other question, the company did file a manpower

plan with the Ministry of Labour, and my officials tell me that the

company is living up to the terms of that plan in all respects, even as

far as training is concerned. Almost one-third of the maintenance

workforce at the mine are apprentices. That's a very high rate,

especially given the present economic situation.

[ Page 3902 ]

We will, of course, be keeping close tabs on this as hiring

continues for the rest of the year, and I'm sure that the member for

North Island will wish to ask further questions as time goes on. We

will also be keeping in close contact with Canada Employment to ensure

that Canada Employment is not relocating people from the east to

British Columbia and paying a relocation allowance to do so.

AUTOMATIZED TELEPHONE SOLICITING

HON. MR. McGEER: Some days ago I undertook to bring back to

the House information as soon as I had something positive to report on

the subject of telepests. I'm sorry the member from Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) isn't here. Monday is a difficult day for opposition

attendance, but I did undertake to bring a reply at the earliest

possible moment.

As members know, we have had little success in dealing with the

CRTC, which has jurisdiction over the telephone company. But my

colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) may be able to come to the rescue of people in British

Columbia, because he believes that this Legislature may have authority

under

section 4 of the Trade Practice Act, dealing with unconscionable

transactions. That was the case where somebody needing a telephone in

an emergency was connected to one of these computer dialing systems.

The government has made it clear — with the support of the opposition,

I would take it — that it considers this a most odious practice and

will seek from the companies voluntary cessation of the practice. But

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is prepared to take

further action, as he'll make clear after question period. I would take

it that if neither of these methods is effective, the opposition would

be strongly in support of the government giving the Legislature

authority to deal with the matter.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the answer to a question on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $190,978.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Perhaps I should just give the members a few minutes to clear the chamber.

It's seems like it was only six or eight days ago — although I'm

sure it's perhaps four or five weeks — that we stood to defend the

estimates of the department of agriculture for the fiscal year which we

are just concluding. It is a pleasure to stand now and present the

estimates for the year 1984-85.

The year we have just concluded was not a banner year, but it was a

year in which agriculture demonstrated some stability, which we

couldn't see in many of the other sectors in the province. But it was

also a year in which the returns from the market reflected the buyers'

strength out there, both in the province and in the country. The yield

in cash for products sold was less than anticipated, and as a result

the draughts under the income insurance programs extensive. As a

result, when you compare the dollars anticipated to be expended and the

dollars actually expended for the fiscal year we have just concluded,

you'll see the reflection of those added draughts.

For the new year we anticipate some stronger market returns, and as

a result we have gone out on a limb, although I think everyone in the

House understands that the financial support programs for agriculture

are negotiable. That which is provided for is not necessarily a hard

number. It may well be that the needs of the ministry will be in excess

of what has been anticipated. But I think that the numbers you see

before you give you an indication of what the ministry feels can be

accomplished in this year. It's optimistic. I am trusting, along with

the ministry, that it actually happens.

One of the major industries in the agricultural sector is the beef

industry, and the indicators from south of the border and from the rest

of Canada say that prices in the beef industry should be more firm this

year than they were last. As a result, we'll see some recovery in that

sector.

The fruit industry had perhaps one of its lowest years, when we

think in terms of market return. We have focused some attention from

the ministry, and have tried to muster some more attention in the

industry itself, on marketing. We believe that for the year which we

are about to begin, the fruit industry will show some recovery as well.

In the ministry itself, I have to say with some pride that we

undertook to contribute to the government's stated intention to reduce

the size and cost of government. In the year just concluded, we really

were not participants when it came to actual cost savings, as you can

tell by the bottom line. But in any event, this year we wish to

participate; there will be the rounding out of some of the programs.

Rather than trying to have a straight-line reduction across the

ministry, by which some programs with perhaps only a limited number of

personnel might be affected and the program itself not be affected, I

have suggested that we look at programs and identify the one which we

would love to keep, and for which we even see a need and a desire, but

a program that perhaps during tough times we can do without. Identify

the program, eliminate that program, and as a result leave the rest of

the programs as much as possible intact. This is what we have tried to

accomplish. I don't know that we have done a one hundred percent job on

it; as we go through the fiscal year it may well be that we'll have to

suggest some adjustments.

Identified as an area for direct savings is Tranquille Farm, for

instance, where we've identified some dollars that can be saved. We

have identified dollars which can be saved in brand inspection and in

veterinary inspection. We have identified a few dollars which can be

saved because this year we have a lesser demand on the interest rates

that are payable. We have also initiated, under the farm income

insurance program, an innovative way in which we believe the industry

can strive for excellence. For instance, in the fruit industry, under

the previous program the same amount of benefit was derived from the

farm income insurance program whether the product that you were

producing was fancy/extra fancy on one end of the scale or culls on the

other end of the scale. We have negotiated with the industry and have

been able to come up with what we believe is a minimal saving by

encouraging that sector to strive for the fancy and the extra fancy,

and that portion that is the lowest part of the quality produced, which

is really not being used for primary market return, will no longer

qualify under the farm income insurance program.

[ Page 3903 ]

But what I am most happy to report to the members of the House is

that in dealing with the farm community itself there is an

understanding that 1982 and 1983, and perhaps 1984, are not the kind of

years in which we can expect boom-time returns — and no one understands

it better than they. I have been encouraged by their willingness to sit

down to discuss the problems, to negotiate and say: "Yes, we must try

to do a little better." And it doesn't make any difference whether you

talk about the milk industry, the poultry industry, beef or vegetables;

there is a spirit of cooperation that's out there for which I am

thankful. It makes it very easy to work in my ministry, and I want to

do everything in my power to encourage that spirit of understanding. I

think increasingly the industry is coming to recognize, without

somebody having to stand up and wave a flag, that this minister is

interested in the success of agriculture, and I think their own words

express it best: "This minister is a minister for agriculture and not

just the Minister of Agriculture." I don't know that I really deserve

that, but I've heard it out there, and it does make the job just a

little easier.

The approach that I have taken, which I hope meets with the members'

approval, is first simply to have an open door at my office — where I

try to spend as little time as possible — so that anyone from any

sector of the agriculture community can come to discuss their problems

frankly, and yet with some measure of confidentiality, so that we can

find out what is really their analysis of any problem in the industry.

Secondly, I have adopted the practice of simply going out to where they

are and taking a look at the status of their sector. It's tough to

maintain a balance; I know there are some who would sooner have me

there, ready to pick up the phone when it rings, but there are others

who seem to appreciate the fact that there is very little growing on my

desk and that most of agriculture takes place somewhere out there. On

an increasing basis, that's the approach I'd like to take; I hope it

meets with your approval.

[2:45]

The general direction — in these opening remarks I have to speak

only in generalities — of the ministry is going to be one in which we

focus not only on quality production but on access to the market of

that production. We are actually going to be focusing on the marketing

and the creating of markets for our product. We produce good stuff. We

have a good quality farm product, second to none. The concentration has

long been on production and quality production. Since my coming to the

ministry, I have tried to encourage the various sectors to think not in

terms of just getting the stuff out the front gate, but rather to think

of how this product eventually finds its way to the consumer. If we

have the entire chain thinking — you heard me say this when I last

produced my estimates — of how best to get the product to the consumer

at the best possible price, then I think that the entire chain will

work that much better. That will be the general direction.

Management. We are anticipating more seminars, the kind of which

we've already had one; they are to assist the farm economy if they have

any difficulties. By the way, this is not to suggest that the

difficulties are widespread. I think that the agricultural industry has

demonstrated some sophistication in these matters. We are standing by

to assist them in management technique and advice if we can give it.

Management and marketing are two words that start with the letter M,

and they will be the focus throughout this year.

With those few words, I want to hear the questions of the hon.

critics. I will do my very, very best to bring the response to their

questions.

MS. SANFORD: I thank the minister for his comments about his

ministry. Flowing from those comments are certainly some questions that

have come to mind, which I intend to deal with somewhat later this

afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I would like to pursue one comment that the minister

made and tie it in with discussion that took place last week, more in

the area of food in this province rather than in the area of

agricultural production as such. The minister said that we have

good-quality farm production in British Columbia. I certainly agree

with the minister on that. I would like to appeal to the minister to

ensure that that good-quality product is made available to all of those

people who now have to make do with less than a good-quality product,

in that their nutritional needs are not being met in this province

today.

Last week, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that since 1935 the U.S.

Department of Agriculture has purchased surplus food produced in the

United States. The budget for that this year is somewhere around $17

billion to $18 billion. This is food purchased by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture and made available to infants, children and people on

low incomes who cannot be expected to have a high nutritional standard,

based on the income that they have.

As a result of the concern of a representative from Ohio, Dennis E.

Eckart, in the House of Representatives.... I certainly would refer

this particular report to the minister's attention, because he did

express some interest in the concept that I was advancing last week

with respect to the purchase of surplus foods in British Columbia to be

distributed to those people who are now lining up at soup kitchens and

are attending food banks. Sometimes they find that the food bank itself

has run out of food for distribution. Representative Eckart asked that

the U.S. General Accounting Office in Washington, D.C. do a report for

him on food and food distribution in the United States. The title of

this report is "Public and Private Efforts to Feed America's Poor." The

General Accounting Office has determined that in the United States

about 20 percent of all food produced is lost or wasted annually. I

think that's very significant, Mr. Chairman. Some 137 million tonnes of

food valued at $31 billion is wasted or lost annually in the United

States. The General Accounting Office has also determined that we have

lost an opportunity to feed some 49 million people who could have been

fed — this goes way back to 1974, mind you — from lost food grain,

meat, sugar, oil, seeds, vegetables, fruits and nuts in the United

States.

I recognize that the surpluses that occur in some parts of the

United States do not occur in British Columbia. Nonetheless, here in

British Columbia we know there are people who are not being adequately

fed. We know that the income that is available to them through the

Ministry of Human Resources is inadequate to ensure that they have a

nutritionally balanced diet. We know that the Ministry of Human

Resources officers — that is, the social workers themselves — are

referring their clients who come to them toward the end of the month,

when the social assistance recipients tell their workers that they have

run out of food money, to the food banks and soup kitchens. We know

that that situation exists in British Columbia today. We also know that

the sale of fluid milk in the province last year was some six million

litres down from what it was the previous year. That means only one

thing: not that

[ Page 3904 ]

the pattern has changed in terms of consumption,

that people are now consuming other products, but simply that the cost

is such to those people on low income that they cannot afford to

purchase the same amount of milk as they did in previous years. To a

large extent, they are what are called the new poor in this particular

report. These are people who've never had to face the prospect of

lining up at a food bank or soup kitchen.

This government has an obligation to those people who elected them

to ensure that their basic food requirements are met. They can do no

less. We know that the income to those people in receipt of Human

Resources assistance is inadequate. We know that the Minister of

Agriculture and Food has done absolutely no research into the

nutritional value of food. He admitted that in the Legislature last

week. We know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has said:

"While it sounds like a great idea, we don't have any money. My budget

has no money to purchase the surplus food that does exist in this

province from time to time. We certainly will consider the idea." This

means only one thing: we're going to have to wait for yet another year

— and who knows what the soup kitchens and food banks are going to be

like at the end of another year — for any kind of action on the part of

that government, unless they rethink their position with respect to the

purchase of food.

I would like to refer again to this report, because I think it bears

very significantly on what is happening here in British Columbia today.

Even in the United States — where they have been spending $18 billion a

year purchasing surplus food and distributing it through various ways

and means, including food stamps, lunches at schools, and organizations

such as church groups — according to this report put out by the General

Accounting Office, they do not have a national hunger count as such.

One of the recommendations of this report is that an attempt be made to

do a national hunger count, to determine how many people in the United

States — in the midst of the greatest wealth in the entire world — are

actually hungry, or at least malnourished, even if their stomachs are

full.

I'll quote directly from the report: "Researchers, attempting to

document hunger in the city of Chicago, Illinois, in the latter 1970s

similarly concluded that it is difficult to assess with precision the

numbers of people who are hungry. The researchers observed that hunger

exists but that it is pervasive, and that there are large numbers of

needy people who are not visible to the system." The same applies here

in British Columbia. It applies more today than it ever has, because of

the fact that we have outrageously high unemployment rates and

ever-increasing lineups at Human Resources offices, soup kitchens and

food banks.

The National Council of Churches' Working Group on Domestic Hunger

and Poverty is recognized as one of the chief barometers of private

sector food programs. Its director was quoted in December 1982 as

saying: "The hunger problem nationally is three times, and in some

places four times, worse than it was a year ago. Every group I talk to

is up that high, and that's 106 of them: some direct soup kitchens and

some emergency food cupboards, from Maine to California." The same

thing is happening here, where the levels of hunger — that is, those

people who appear to get emergency food assistance — has doubled and

tripled. The same thing is happening here in British Columbia. It's

appalling that this government, in response to an idea which the

minister himself said was a good one, is not prepared to take any

action whatsoever to ensure that the surplus food that is produced here

in British Columbia is at least made available to those people who are

lining up at the food banks and soup kitchens. What they've done

instead is cut back on the money available for food to those people

under the age of 25. They've frozen the rates for the last two years in

terms of the ability to purchase food.

I'm going to quote again from this report done at the behest of

Representative Eckart, who was concerned about food and hunger in the

United States:

"As the number of people seeking food assistance has

increased throughout the United States, one prevalent observation is

that the profile of those seeking assistance at emergency food centers

has changed. No longer are food centers serving only their traditional

clientele of the chronically poor, derelicts, alcoholics and mentally

ill persons who typically live on the streets and who most probably

will be in need no matter what happens in the economy. Today many

organizations report that a mounting number of 'new poor' are

contributing to the increasing numbers seeking assistance at many

emergency shelters and food centers. This breed of 'new poor' is made

up of individuals who were employed and perhaps financially stable just

a short time ago."

It's exactly what is happening here in British Columbia.

"As contrasted

with the chronically poor, more of them are members of families, young and able-bodied,

and have homes in the suburbs. They now find themselves without work, with unemployment

benefits...."

They and are in such a desperate situation that they line up at the food banks.

[3:00]

One of the things that this report noted — and this has also been

noted certainly by members in the opposition who have tended the food

banks and have seen what is happening in terms of the distribution of

food — is that the new poor are very embarrassed at having to go and

line up for a bag of food. Imagine their embarrassment, having stood in

line, to find that the food is now all gone because the food bank has

run out of food. That has happened in British Columbia on many

occasions.

I'm quoting from the report again: "Many of the 'new poor' are proud and have a distaste for accepting handouts. However, the Wall Street Journal

reported in January 1983 that 'as the nation's recession lingers, more

families are swallowing their pride and taking handouts.'" These are

not people who are trying to go and take advantage of the system. These

are people in genuine need who have to swallow their pride in order to

go there to get the food they need to feed their families. Yet this

government has refused to make money available to purchase surplus

products to assist farmers. This minister says that he is a minister

for agriculture, not of agriculture. If that's the case, then surely he

would ensure that every bit of food that's produced in this province by

those farmers is purchased and distributed to those people who need

food. It is a very unusual circumstance. We didn't think that it was

going to become like this in British Columbia. Since July of 1983, when

they introduced that new budget, the situation has become absolutely

desperate for so many people. This is a very minor request that we are

making on this side of the House. There were surplus vegetables

[ Page 3905 ]

ploughed under right here in the Saanich Peninsula

— excellent vegetables that were fed to cattle because there was no

market for them.

If the minister was interested in the basic nutrition of people, he

would make sure that fluid milk consumption remained the same, even

though the surplus milk that is now produced is sent off for industrial

production. He would ensure that those fluid milk quotas stayed the

same so that people were able to retain that basic nutrition. It's one

of the best foods available, and we had a six-million-litre drop in

sales last year. That was because people couldn't afford it.

There are existing food banks; there is a vehicle through which this

food could be distributed now. I know that if there were more food

available, other food banks would be established in this province,

because the whole province is certainly not covered at the moment. We

have good-quality farm production, according to the minister. We have

farmers who need to sell their product, who from time to time have to

plough it under or dump it or feed it to the cattle or ship it to the

United States for some kind of processing. Why doesn't the government

purchase the present quota of fluid milk now, and ensure that it is

retained at last year's level, rather than have consumption drop by six

million litres? Why doesn't the government purchase the surplus

vegetables and fruit and make them available?

I think government has an obligation. If it can't provide

employment, if it can't in any way assist people in terms of giving

them some hope for the future, giving young people some hope that there

is something for them in this province — some kind of planning, some

kind of hope for the future; I don't know how else to word it, Mr.

Chairman — then surely the least it can do is ensure that the basic

nutritional needs of people are met in B.C. So far they have not been

prepared to adopt that policy.

If they don't have any funds to purchase food for distribution

through the food banks.... Let me remind you that there is absolutely

no provincial funding now for those food banks. They are all staffed by

volunteers — from the church groups, from the trade unions — and those

food banks rely on donations in order to keep people fed in this

province. At the same time we have a farming community which, because

it is unable to sell its product from time to time, has to plough it

under. It doesn't make any sense at all. If the government doesn't have

that kind of money available now, as the minister suggested the other

day, then surely the Minister of Agriculture and Food could speak to

his colleague sitting down there, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), get him out to collect the money that is due to them from

the stumpage rates that have not been collected, and use that money. It

is not in the budget now. The minister says he hasn't budgeted for that

food. Collect that money and use it to purchase food. Why not? Surely

the government could cut down on some of its flights or some of its

advertising. I am just making some suggestions to this minister as to

where he might find that money that he says he doesn't have at the

moment. Does B.C. Rail really need all of those $470 million, Mr.

Chairman? I know you're going to object very soon because I'm making

suggestions as to how we can buy food in this province for those people

who are hungry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate the direction of your

debate. However we have to restrict our debate during estimates to the

minister whose estimates are before us and his administrative actions

only. Debate as it pertains to the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food........

MS. SANFORD: I'm trying to help that minister get some more

money so he can buy food for food banks. He says he doesn't have it.

It's very simple, Mr. Chairman. It's there and it's available if they

want to make it available.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the estimates.

MS. SANFORD: Did that minister say something like "socialist

money"? I didn't quite hear what he said, but I'm sure that he's not

very interested in ensuring that those people who are hungry get the

food they require.

The other thing this minister has indicated is that he has done no

research whatsoever into the nutritional value of the food basket. The

food basket is a basket of various food items that are priced every

month so that we have an idea of what's happening to food prices in

British Columbia. We don't know what the food value of that basket is.

The ministry doesn't know and the people who first drew up the food

basket don't know what's contained in it in terms of nutrition. So I'm

going to make a suggestion to the minister that he might consider at

this stage. I think this issue is so important at this time and the

need is so urgent right now that I would request that the minister

activate the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in this province

and add to it representatives from the Ministry of Human Resources and

the Ministry of Health, in order to look at food and its nutritional

value in terms of the costs and the money available to those people on

the lowest scale of income, and to determine how many people are hungry

in this province, where those pockets of hunger are and how best the

government can assist through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

through the purchase of surplus food from our farmers in ensuring that

people who are now not receiving the nutrition they need — in fact are

not even receiving enough food to eat — receive those minimum levels of

food and nutrition.

The Minister of Agriculture has not activated the Committee on

Agriculture since he has been minister. It seems to me that there's a

whole area of his ministry here which has been neglected by him,

according to his own admission last week about not doing any research

on the nutritional value of the food produced and distributed here in

British Columbia. Here's a chance for that committee to become

activated and to give the government some advice on nutrition, food,

its costs and the incomes some of these people must live under and yet

try to feed their families from. This is an ideal time, and that

committee should be activated now. The minister himself should take an

interest in this subject and sit with the committee. I can assure you

that those of us on this side of the Legislature would be more than

pleased to devote as much time and effort as we can to work of a

committee of that type. It's high time, the need is urgent, it's now,

and I know that the money can be found.

At this stage I would like to hear some comments from the minister

concerning some of the suggestions I've made regarding food and food

banks, the distribution of food and surplus produce.

[ Page 3906 ]

[3:15]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll try to respond somewhat in the order in which the hon. member for Comox has raised the questions.

She suggested perhaps a good model to follow would be the American

model. She read several excerpts from a report. She talks about the

U.S. model in which some $17 billion to $18 billion has been utilized

to purchase surplus foods. When she last discussed this during a

question period, I suggested that the suggestion she made was worthy of

consideration. It would be nice if the Ministry of Agriculture had the

same kind of latitude and authority as does the agricultural model in

the U.S. As the member well knows, in the U.S. the authority for

agriculture is vested in the federal government. That federal

government has a program which is quite different from our own, in

providing incentives for growth in the agricultural sector. As a matter

of fact, in the United States they pay you for not growing.

MS. SANFORD: That's bad. I don't want you to adopt that model.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yet that's the model that the member

suggests we should follow. It's the program where they have surpluses,

and the reason they have surpluses.... No, don't say the reason; say

the indicator which gives you an idea as to how successful or

unsuccessful their production incentives or disincentives are.... They

are directly proportionate to the sizes of the surpluses that they

have. And they do have surpluses. I can remember, not too many weeks

ago, that they were giving away cheese by the box. There was nothing

else they could do with it. They had to give it away. The amount of

cheese that they had in stock was an indicator of the failure of their

approach to incentives and disincentives for the production of food.

I have to tell you that in the province of British Columbia we do

not have that kind of federal authority. I have to say, further, that

even if we did have it, we would not be utilizing that kind of

authority, not in this province, because we have a far better way of

managing the production of food. It's not done by a government at all.

A government simply lays down some guidelines, and the producer himself

joins hands with the producer next to him. They form an association,

and they themselves establish the association whereby they manage the

supply of their product. And what's their record? The member has

suggested several times that what I should be doing is taking the

scarce dollars that I have in my ministry and buying surplus food.

There's no surplus food in the province of British Columbia. Show me.

If you want to take milk, we produce 100 percent of our fluid milk needs. But

we do not produce 100 percent of our processed milk needs. As a matter of fact,

if I listen to my producers, they tell me that we produce about one-third of

our processed milk. Now processed milk and milk start out the same way. It's

the same stuff when you start; it's just that it's put down two different

chutes. One is fluid milk and is for human consumption in its primary form.

The other is processed milk. We have exactly 100 percent of our fluid milk needs.

We don't have any surplus, because whatever we don't drink we put into

processed milk products, and here we have only 33 percent of what we need.

That's the record of the milk producers' associations in this province:

a pretty skookum record. Where would I buy surplus milk in the province of

British Columbia? Tell me. That's why, when the member suggested it, I said

it's a suggestion worthy of consideration. I went right out there and started

considering.

Eggs. I've talked to you about milk. Do we have a surplus of eggs in

this province? The answer is no. We produce 95 percent of the eggs that

we need. Do you want to eat apples? And only apples? Is that where your

nutritional value is? I was telling you the other day, Mr. Chairman, my

ministry does not have a mandate for the analyses of the various foods.

We don't have the same structure as the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

which has all kinds of things in its mandate, including the issuing of

food stamps, which I'm going to talk about a little later. We have some

surplus apples, if you want to eat those. We produce exactly 100

percent of the raspberries we need, and we sell the rest; we've got a

good market for raspberries. But when it comes down to some of the

other foods, do we have surpluses? Let me tell you: when it comes to

pork, we produce about 25 percent of what we eat. When it comes to

beef, we produce about 20 percent of what we eat. I don't see any

surpluses there. We only produce 50 percent of the potatoes we eat.

There's no surplus there. When it comes to turkeys and chickens, we

produce 80 percent of what we eat. We produce approximately 50 percent

of the vegetables we eat. We produce only 20 percent of the tomatoes

that we eat.

The member suggests that we should be using the scarce dollars that

we have for the Ministry of Agriculture and take over the mandate of

the Minister of Human Resources and walk around and purchase these

surpluses, which are non-existent, and make them available to those who

are in need. Then she says that those who are the new poor are

embarrassed by handouts. I think we've got a far better program. This

is the way we do it, through the Ministry of Human Resources. Please,

Mr. Chairman, don't rule me out of order now, because you didn't rule

the member out of order when she asked the questions. I know that I'm

not supposed to be doing this, but.... The Ministry of Human Resources

— and I would support this — rather than further embarrass the new

poor, makes available the funds, and then lets the individual, who is

new poor or old poor, I don't care what kind of poor.... It gives them

the decency and the dignity of being able to select the foods that they

want. It's none of this Big Brother government that says: "Now here are

turnips, and these turnips are so much potassium, nitrogen, water,

sugar, and whatever else. You eat these turnips or else." None of that

Big Brother stuff. Let the individual select for himself.

The other day the member had a good suggestion, which I believed

should be considered. So I went out and I started considering. So far,

I don't find a way in the province of British Columbia to put together

that suggestion. In the first place, I couldn't find the surpluses. In

the second place, I wouldn't have the money in my ministry to buy the

surpluses if they existed. I think it is far better that we should have

a supply-management program which ensures that the surpluses are not

there. Please remember, it costs just as much to produce surpluses as

it costs to produce the portion of our crop that is consumed, and to

whatever degree we have surpluses hanging around, to that degree we

have the new poor in the farming community. They produce produce which

is not sold and they can't pay anybody for any of the costs of

producing until the commodity is sold. No, I'm afraid that I come down

heavy on the side of British Columbia. I think we have it better here.

[ Page 3907 ]

The member suggested food stamps. As I understand it, in the United

States the Department of Agriculture is responsible for issuing food

stamps. We don't have that mandate here, not under the Ministry of

Agriculture, and that's the only ministry that I can speak for. I think

that my first suggestion would stand here: that is, it is far better to

issue the funds for the people in need through the Ministry of Human

Resources and let them select their own food.

She talked about the dumping of food products and the ploughing

under of foodstuffs on Vancouver Island. It didn't happen this year; it

happened last year. I would encourage all people who have land that is

being held in the land reserve for agricultural purposes, but who do

not have, under a supply management program, the capacity to produce

foodstuffs on that acreage.... I'm suggesting to them that they grow

whatever they can on the acreage that they have, because there is

absolutely nothing to keep them from selling that product at their own

farm gate. The only time food is dumped at all is when there is too

much perishable food available to the market at any given time. The

market cannot absorb all of it at once, and it will perish. But if

there are those who wish to time the growing of their product so that

they can bring it onstream at such a time as there is demand for it

before it perishes, God bless them. I'm encouraging them to grow it and

sell it right out of the farm gate.

She talked about organizing and initiating some activities for the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I think the member — who

perhaps has been nominated by her caucus to be a member of that Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture — has a notice on her desk which says

that the organization of that committee will take place some time this

week; I'm sure that's the case. So I'm happy to announce, Madam Member,

that you will not be disappointed in that regard.

That takes me to the bottom of her suggestions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, some latitude was allowed the

minister and the member for Comox with respect to this debate and the

implications and impact on other ministries, but I think the committee

would be well served now if we could stick to the administrative

actions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

MS. SANFORD: Food certainly is part of the administrative

responsibility of the minister. I did not, Mr. Chairman, recommend that

we adopt a system of food stamps; I did not recommend that we adopt a

system similar to that in the United States. I certainly do not at any

time advocate that we pay farmers not to grow food, which is happening

in the United States and which has happened in Canada from time to

time. I would much prefer that people did not have to line up at soup

kitchens and food banks. I would much prefer that the people in this

province had work; that they had jobs and were able to retain their

dignity. I would much prefer that the income available to them when

they've lost their jobs was sufficient for them to feed their families

so they don't have to line up at food banks. Mr. Chairman, it is this

government's economy, this government's approach to economics in this

province, that has resulted in the lineups at food banks and soup

kitchens.

The only thing I'm trying to do at this stage — aside from

condemning them at every point I can in terms of their approach to the

economy — is to ensure that those people who do have to line up, who

are put in that position because of your policies, your government and

your adherence to that right-wing economic policy.... That's what I'm

trying to do here today.

[3:30]

I'm going to read from a couple of articles in newspapers last fall. The Times-Colonist ,

September 3, says one farmer got rid of nearly 15 acres of broccoli;

another plowed under nearly four acres of head lettuce; 65 hectares of

cabbages were ploughed under; and so on and so on. Storage warehouses:

3,000 cases of tomatoes, 1,500 cases of cucumbers, sitting idle with no

buyers in sight. All of these are from various newspapers.

What I'm saying is that from time to time there are surpluses. If

we're going to ensure that there won't be any cutbacks in the

fluid-milk quotas, then they're going to have to retain...they're going

to have to be able to produce and sell as fluid milk the quotas that

have been assigned to them for fluid-milk quotas. If they continue to

drop, then the quotas will be dropped, and if that's what the minister

wants, that's what will happen.

The minister is saying: "Oh. we can't possibly purchase food; we're

not structured the way they are in the United States, so that

eliminates us" — end of problem. Too bad if they run out of food at

food banks; too bad if people aren't getting enough to eat; too bad if

the nutritional levels are not being met in this province. The Minister

of Food sits over there and says: "We are not structured the way they

are in the United States, so therefore we can't possibly buy extra food

and make sure that the people lined up at the food banks are not turned

away because they've run out of food." Volunteers are staffing those

places, Mr. Chairman — you don't have to pay anybody to do it — and

I've suggested ways in which the minister could get additional moneys

in order to ensure that that surplus food is purchased. But I'm not

going to spend any more time on that; the only thing I'm going to say

is that the excuses advanced by this minister are very feeble indeed,

and I'll leave it at that.

Getting on to other aspects of this budget, Mr. Chairman, one area

in which we have seen the biggest cut in terms of the estimated

expenditures for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the financial

assistance programs. I have a number of questions I wish to pose to the

minister with respect to that.

The farm income insurance program stays pretty well in place, the

same as it was before. But we have a $7 million cut in the ARDSA and

interest reimbursement programs. The ARDSA fund, for those of you who

are not aware, is a federal-provincial program. It is now finished, in

that it has not been renewed. There will still be funds expended from

that program until the end of October of this year. I would assume that

the ARDSA money is being cut to about $3 million from $6 million last

year. I would like to ask the minister about the projects which will be

unfinished when the ARDSA money finally runs out. Half a fence is not

very valuable, Mr. Chairman. If people have been able to construct only

half a fence under the ARDSA program and then find that the money has

run out, obviously that money has been wasted. Regarding ARDSA funding,

the same applies to a number of other projects in the province.

I know this government is now negotiating with the federal

government on a new program — they're going to entitle this one the

ERDA program. I would like to know what sort of projects will be funded

under that program and whether or not it will in fact replace the ARDSA

program to a

[ Page 3908 ]

large extent. I would like to have some details with respect to the ARDSA program.

The other thing the minister mentioned was that they anticipate that

they're not going to be spending as much money in the interest

reimbursement program. That, I assume, would be because of interest

rates dropping. But the amount of money available has been cut in

half. To me, that must mean some changes in the interest

reimbursement program. It must mean that either the $10,000 level has

been reduced or the interest rates themselves are somehow going to have

to reflect the cuts in the moneys in that particular program. I would

like some information on that as well.

I don't think the estimates that we have before us in any way

reflect the final understanding that the ministry people and the

minister himself had with respect to the budgeted amounts of money that

would be available under this ministry this year. As I understand it,

the final form that the ministry people saw was quite different from

what we have before us today. I don't know what happened in the

interim, but obviously something happened that surprised everybody in

the ministry. As a result, a lot of staff people still don't know where

the moneys are going to be expended or where the staff cuts are going

to be, and so on. I would like to ask the minister, with respect to

staff cuts specifically.... Last year we had 594 people on staff; it's

down to 508 this year. In his opening remarks the minister mentioned

that there would be some cuts in brand inspections. I don't know if

that means that there will be 24 people cut from that particular

program. Could the minister advise me how many people are going to be

cut from that program? Could the minister also advise me whether or not

the positions in the dairy industry — lab technicians and inspectors —

are also part of that cut from 594 to 508? By the way, a few years ago

— maybe three or four — the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture was

about 725; it's now down to 508. It's been cut quite significantly.

There have been discussions between ministry officials and the dairy

industry itself with respect to the industry taking over some of the

jobs now being done by lab technicians and inspectors. We're talking

about some 30 positions. The dairy people have just had notice that

they are facing a huge increase in the fees charged them for these

particular services. Are there going to be cuts this year in the dairy

section — in other words, lab technicians and inspectors? Is the

increase supposed to cover the people that are going to be remaining on

staff? What is the situation there? I would like to know, and I

certainly know that the people in the dairy industry would like to know

at this stage what is happening to them.

I also wish to question the tendency of this government to privatize

so many of the inspections in the various ministries. Here is another

example where we are going to ask the dairy industry itself to, in

effect, police itself by doing its own inspection and by taking care of

its own lab work. I think we are running some risk in that, just as we

are running a risk in the forest industry by allowing the corporations

to do more and more policing of themselves rather than having

governmental people keeping an eye on things in the interest of the

public.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Aye.

MS. SANFORD: No, I'm not finished yet.

Mr. Chairman, under the deputy minister's office, we are seeing a

$200,000 cut. The minister, I think, recognizes that most of that money

normally would go to support fall fairs in the province. I am very

concerned about a cut of that size to the various fall fairs throughout

the province, because if anything ensures that agriculture is promoted

in this province, it's those local fairs. There is a great interest in

them. We in the Courtenay area have just had the fall fair reactivated

after a number of years when nothing was happening in that area. There

was tremendous interest again this year. I think that for the minister

at this time to slash the funding for fall fairs, which are one of the

best avenues for promoting agriculture in this province, means that he

is not really the minister for agriculture after all. He is prepared to

cut and slash wherever he sees fit, regardless of the impact it might

have on the agricultural community.

There has been a small amount of money available every year for

research at the University of British Columbia. I wonder if the

minister would answer whether or not that has been cut this year, and

whether the University of British Columbia will not receive that very

minimal amount — I think somewhere around $30,000 — for research to be

done at UBC.

It was with a great deal of pride, some years ago, that we as a

province made money available to assist developing countries. This was

done through the Ministry of Agriculture. A special fund was

established by W.A.C. Bennett, who felt that the least this province

could do was to assist, in some way, the agricultural development in

some of the emerging nations. What we're finding now is that not only

is this minister not interested in making sure that the nutritional

requirements of the people of British Columbia are met, but he shows no

interest whatsoever in the aid to developing countries. There's a

program that has virtually been wiped out by this government, and I

think it is tragic indeed. We as British Columbians, as a whole, have a

responsibility, obligation and duty to assist those countries that are

still struggling to establish their own agricultural industry. Yet we

find that that's another program that is being eliminated — chopped and

neglected — by this government. I've asked a number of questions.

Perhaps the minister would be willing to respond.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to remember them in the order in which they came.

She notes that the farm income insurance program is almost

identical. We have tried to negotiate with the producers themselves, as

I said earlier in my remarks, a new approach so that we would have an

emphasis on quality production. In the fruit industry, as an example,

we have negotiated that a part of the crop called culls no longer

qualifies for financial assistance. If you compare the actual hard

numbers, I think there are about $1 million worth of savings in the

entire $32 million. I know that it looks approximately the same, but I

wouldn't want it to look like the farmers aren't doing their share to

try to exercise some savings. They are doing very well there.

[3:45]

Then she talks about the ARDSA program. Let me just review that

program for the member. ARDSA was a five-year program. It was a $60

million program, but the $60 million was shared fifty-fifty between the

two governments; our share was $30 million. So when we came to the draw

on provincial funding, it amounted to something like $6 million

[ Page 3909 ]

a year. That program ran out something over a year

ago. There was a subsidiary agreement which extended it by one year.

The approvals process for that ARDSA program had a deadline. All

approvals had to be in place by July 31 in order to qualify. However,

the funding in that program still continues until October of this year.

But there have been no new approvals since July of last year. There

will be no new approvals until April 1 next year. Actually, there is a

hiatus in the ARDSA program when the work catches up with the money.

When it looks to you like there's a $7 million cut in the ARDSA

program, in actual fact what's happening is that there is almost a year

— from July until April — in which there is no new money appropriated.

Therefore the only part of money that is appropriated for that year is

what's left there, four months of a year. When you put it down on paper

in a crude form it looks like that money is not there for that year but

that some of it is. The actual fact is that there's going to be one

full year without any ARDSA program at all. Do you see it there? It

will look like there's an ARDSA program; the work will be going on. But

when it actually comes to the appropriation, there is no new money

available for one full year.

I have received authority from cabinet to proceed on a brand-new

five-year program, and the negotiations are now going on with the

federal government to see whether or not they wish to cooperate again,

as they did last time, on a five-year program, and to contribute 50

percent of the cost. If they will match our dollars, we will have a new

$60 million ARDSA program. That's my goal. We have our share, but we do

not yet have the federal share. The early indications are that the

federal government is willing to go along with the program, but that

they don't want to go along with it on the same basis as last time

because they didn't get enough credit across Canada for the work they

did. They can't really lay that charge on our table, because wherever I

went to open or announce a project we always took with us a

representative. Although in many instances someone from the ministry

was not available, someone from inside the province representing the

minister was there. I don't like to appear like Mr. Nice Guy, but in

those kinds of things I give the federal guy the first opportunity to

speak; I recognize the fact that this is a 50 percent program and that

as much credit needs to go to the federal government as to the

provincial government. I have no hang-ups with that kind of thing. But

across Canada, apparently, that isn't being done, so the federal

government would like to have the kind of program where they have a

higher profile. I don't give a hoot what kind of profile they need or

must have; what I want is a new $60 million ARDSA program. We're

working on it, and I hope that one day I can stand here and announce it.

The interest reimbursement program is affected. I suggested in my

earlier remarks that this is one area where the industry, through its

agency, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, suggested we might be able

to find some savings. Interest is lower this year, and in order to

effect a $3 million saving we had three choices. We could have a

deductible, meaning that some of the ones that had smaller claims

wouldn't get any reimbursement. I rejected that because we have people

coming into the agricultural industry who would be affected adversely

because they're still little producers. We could also lower the cap —

there is presently, as you know, a $10,000 cap – but the fact is that

some of the larger producers who are beyond the $10,000 cap are already

being adversely affected, compared to the rest of the program, in that

for whatever share is above $10,000, they're carrying the load for

their entire interest charges. It looked to me as if the most sensible

and equitable approach to take would be to adjust the interest level

from what it used to be — 1 percent below prime — and make it prime. If

you make it prime, it affects absolutely everybody the same way, and

all five and a half — it's just a little over five and a half —

thousand recipients remain participants in the program. It saves $3.1

million over the entire program, but at least it distributes it

equitably across the spectrum. This is not any surprise. This was

negotiated through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They had a

request which I thought had some validity. They said: "This is not

going to be a heavy year for interest. Could we take whatever money we

can save this year, put it into a sinking fund and have it as a buffer

for a year in which we might have heavy interest charges?" I think it's

valid. The only problem is: what do you do with the sinking fund? I

think it would be far better to have a commitment from government that

says: "We'll take a second look at interest when interest rates are

higher." I think that's probably the best route to go. But those are

the facts on partial interest reimbursement.

She had a question on staff cuts. By and large, we have achieved our

goals strictly through attrition. We have cut out a few programs in

which everyone in the program disappeared with the program. Colony Farm

is an example. Tranquille Farm will be a second example. I don't know

if you're interested in the actual number of full-time equivalents or

not, but in the brand inspection program there's a reduction of six

people, because we are moving to a part-time program of brand

inspection. This was done after negotiations with the cattlemen. So

there are no surprises there.

In sales yards veterinary inspection there is a drop of three

people. In dairy herd inspection there is no change. If you create a

hiatus in that records program, then you lose a part of the records,

and maybe exactly the part that you're depending on to do your analyses

for the upgrading of dairy herds. So we are maintaining the dairy herd

program, but we have increased the user fee to 55 percent of what it

actually costs to run it. We have identified some overlap. We have a

federal program — the ROP program — and we have the provincial program

— the DHIS program. We're taking this fiscal year to negotiate with the

federal people an amalgamation of those two programs, so that we can

have one overall program which would be a better program and save us

both duplication costs where there is duplication. There may well be a

time in the future when the dairy people themselves would like to do

what the brand inspection people would like to do, and that is to be

responsible for that entire activity themselves. We haven't got that

far yet, and I don't want to pre-announce something. But that's what

the dairy people themselves are working toward.

The next question had to do with the fall fairs. The minister

doesn't care about the fall fairs, she said. The grants to fairs and

societies last fiscal year were $278,950. This year the grants to fairs

and societies are $279,000 in round figures, which is $50 more. But the

farmers' institutes have an increase. The Provincial Seed Fair is

exactly what it was. The fairs and exhibitions association — and I

think that's the one the member was concerned about — has an increase

that is so slight you can't talk about it. It's gone up from $182,000

to $185,000. A number of womens' institutes have asked for the

equivalent of decertification. There are fewer of them. Hence there is

a reduction from $27,000 to $25,000 — I'm giving

[ Page 3910 ]

you round numbers. The SPCA has exactly the same

number of dollars. The B.C. Ploughing Association has exactly the same;

the sheep breeders, the same; the Lower Mainland Sheep Producers'

Association, the same; the grape producers, the same; the chinchilla

breeders, the same; VIDO, which is the veterinary thing, has exactly

the same; the Society of Range Management has a slight increase of 10

percent; and Canadian Western Agribition is the same. In total, the

grants to fairs and the grants to societies have received recognition

identical to last year's. It may well be said that there should have

been some cuts there, but I couldn't find it in my heart to make that

kind of a recommendation. It's simple: we're holding the line on that.

If the member is interested in each of the individual fairs, I have

the numbers for all of them. As you know, there are three or four

different classifications. The Pacific National Exhibition gets

$30,000. Then there are the class A fairs, which receive $10,000, and

the class B fairs, which receive $6,000. The increases come whenever

there is a reclassification. If the member wishes to have her fair

receive an increased grant, simply have it reclassified into a higher

fair. It would mean that you would have to display different things —

you have to qualify. That's the way to get an increase. The dollar

values for the classifications are exactly the same as last year.

You talked about the B.C. research at UBC. It's not $30,000; it's $150,000. There is no change.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that

I have to follow up on as a result of the minister's responses. Under

ministry operations, deputy minister's office, we have seen a cut from

$684,000 to $484,000. This is under "grants and contributions." I would

like to know where those cuts are occurring. I see he's going to have

some assistance in this.

Secondly, the minister talked about changing the farm income

insurance program for the apple growers in order to encourage a higher

quality. He said that the culls and the lesser grades would no longer

be qualifying for farm income insurance.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Just culls.

[4:00]

MS. SANFORD: All right. Does that mean that there will be a

general decrease in the amount of money that's available to the apple

growers as a result of this? I know that when the changes were made....

For instance, the original formula was made based on 26,000 pounds per

acre, as I understand it. When the formula was changed to include

culls, the production level then went up to, I think, 30,000 pounds per

acre, or some such figure. I am wondering how this affects the general

pounds-per-acre figure in the formula that you're going to be drawing

up. In other words, are the apple growers going to be penalized as a

result of this? I know there has been a great fear among them that any

change at this stage to eliminate anything out of that farm income

insurance program would result in a lower income for them and lower

payments to them. Of course the apple growers, of all people, could not

afford that at this particular time.

The ARDSA program. The minister complimented himself on making sure

that the federal government is always mentioned at any of these

announcements. I think the federal government, though, is stinging

about a whole lot of other things that they have contributed to and had

no recognition for in this province. You may have mentioned the federal

government's name, but I know that the federal government has been

perturbed by other things, such as the rail cars, where they

contributed money and received no recognition whatsoever.

What about the ERDA program? He did not mention it. This is a new

program, as I understand it, and I would like to know what the minister

is thinking on that. What negotiations are taking place and how does it

compare with the old ARDSA? Will it replace ARDSA?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the first question had to

do with the reduction in grants from $684,000 to $484,000. All local

grants, as I have already shared with you, are approximately the same.

Within a very few dollars, they are the same. The $200,000 savings is

in the reduction in the aid to foreign countries for agricultural

projects, and that's the kind of thing I really feel bad about.

MS. SANFORD: Aid to developing countries?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, aid to developing countries. I would

much sooner increase the funds, but a time when we have to borrow money

to run our own shop is a time when you have to look at that kind of a

grant. It was reduced by $200,000, yes.

Apples. It used to be 26,000 pounds. According to the new formula,

it is 30,000 pounds. The fear the member expresses which might be in

the minds of the producers is not there — at least, it should not be

there. They were at the negotiating table when this was talked about.

It was negotiated; it was not imposed. Okay? As a result, through their

representatives the industry itself — I shouldn't say welcomed —

accepted the idea of: "Let's go for higher quality." There is a

disincentive to better quality production when you get the same dollar

per pound even if you have nothing but scabby apples. The industry at

large.... Undoubtedly you will find individuals, maybe even pockets of

growers, who would say: "You know, it's going to affect me. After all,

it costs as much to grow a scabby apple as it does to grow a nice

extra-fancy apple, so actually there should be the same benefit from

the program." It was negotiated. It affects the overall program, as I

said earlier. Were you listening? The overall program is some $32.6

million — not billion. It affects it by about $1 million. When you look

at it on your sheets, you'll say it looks like it's almost the same,

but it's about $1 million.

The ERDA program is the new federal program. It is a sort of

umbrella program, under which the ARDSA program would be negotiated.

That's their nomenclature, not ours; undoubtedly, when we negotiate a

new program it will be called who knows what. I think the guidelines

will be something similar to the ARDA that did exist.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be brief. We've had a

lot of talk this afternoon about dollars where they relate to the

Ministry of Agriculture. I don't have any problems in those areas, Mr.

Minister. In fact, my constituents in Omineca are generally very happy

with the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture is administered. The

questions I wish to raise — and I do hope I can get some answers to the

very serious questions that I have this afternoon — are the same as the

questions raised on Friday in the estimates of the Minister

[ Page 3911 ]

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) where they relate to agricultural land.

Last Friday I was questioning that minister in regard to what is

called the Vanderhoof Crown land plan. I would like to ask this

minister: first, is he aware of the Vanderhoof Crown land plan?

Secondly, is he aware of what that plan would do to the agricultural

industry in one of the very important regions of this province? For a

year now there has been a freeze on Crown land for agriculture in the

Nechako Valley, which has been a detriment to the expansion of the

agricultural industry within that area. I would suggest that should

this plan be adopted — which heaven forbid I hope would never happen —

there would be a lasting very detrimental effect on the agricultural

industry in that area.

I raise the question at the same time of a similar plan in the

Kispiox Valley, where the same thing is taking place. There is a move

by the Ministry of Forests to take within its fold many thousands of

hectares of prime agricultural land which it deems to be better used

for forestry. On Friday in the estimates of the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing I said — and I reiterate today — that certainly I

have no quarrel with bettering our forestry capability in the province

of British Columbia, particularly in the area I serve. But when I see

figures such as those that I have from the Council of Forest Industries

northern interior lumber sector in Prince George that indicate that in

the Prince George forest district alone there are 8,235,700 hectares of

land within the provincial forest just begging for silviculture

treatment, I've really got to ask the question: why until such time as

that land plus the area that has been logged and has not yet been

planted, which is not in this figure, have been treated as far as

silviculture is concerned...? It's a very real concern to my

agricultural community. Again I say: should the Vanderhoof Crown land

plan, as is the case with the Kispiox Crown land plan, be put in place,

the agricultural industry would be at a standstill in those areas.

There would be no more Crown land available for the expansion of the

family farms and ranches in that particular area. Again I ask: is the

minister aware of the plans? Is the minister, on behalf of the

agricultural industry in this province, in favour of those plans?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I can only discuss, from my

ministry's point of view, the overall and general policy of

agricultural land and its use. I cannot discuss plans in this

committee, whether they be settlement plans, regional plans or Crown

land use plans. I would encourage the member to try to get that

particular kind of information from the minister who is responsible.

But surely to heaven I would be allowed an opinion on it, and maybe

this is what I can express. As a general policy, we have a provision

that land which has been identified by an agricultural producer — a

farmer — as being land that has agricultural capability.... He applies

for a Crown lease of that land. It's Crown land with agricultural

capability. It's not designated that way by someone in an ivory tower

but analyzed and assessed as having agricultural capability by a farmer

— many times a farmer with adjacent private property. When that Crown

lease is granted to that farmer, the land within the Crown lease then

almost automatically forms part of the agricultural land reserve. In my

humble opinion, that agricultural land reserve is then the best kind of

insurance that any farmer could have that his land would be held for

agricultural purposes. This is not to say that he would be using it for

agricultural production immediately, but at least it would be held in

perpetuity for that kind of production. That's the policy we adhere to,

and it's the policy that is broadly subscribed to by the Environment

and Land Use Committee. Indeed, every two or three months there are

dozens of these kinds of applications. They are processed by successful

leaseholders with an obvious view to one time owning the property held

in the agricultural land reserve for agricultural use. If you ask me if

I support that policy, the answer is yes.

[4:15]

MR. KEMPF: I'm certainly happy to hear that philosophy come

from the Minister of Agriculture. But the concern I have — I think the

minister should have that concern as well, Mr. Chairman — is that

should this land, which is going to be earmarked as integrated forest

management land within such a Crown land plan.... My concern is for

that very situation not happening in the future. I have very good

grounds for that concern. I have here a letter from a constituent of

mine who for the past three years has been attempting to acquire a

piece of Crown land for agriculture and has been consistently turned

down by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing because it is

suggested by that ministry that this piece of land is better left for

wildlife management. I have a soft spot in my heart for wildlife

management just as I do for forestry, but this piece of land is already

in the agricultural land reserve, and yet he is told that he can't have

it for agriculture because it's earmarked for another ministry's use.

I have extreme concern when I listen to the Minister of Agriculture

talk about the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, because I really don't think

that to this point, with all due respect, his ministry is aware of what

these Crown land plans are doing or have the possibility of doing to

agriculture in this province. I can certainly see a very real tragedy

down the road in regard to the Vanderhoof area, the second most

important agricultural area in this province outside the Peace River.

It's an area whose success in agriculture depends on the acquisition of

more agricultural lands to add to family farms. If the Vanderhoof Crown

land plan is adopted — it's unfortunate that I can't show maps here in

the chamber; I had the map with me last Friday — there is no more land

for agriculture in the Nechako valley. It will all be earmarked:

"integrated forest management."

The question I have of this minister, as I had of the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and as I will have of the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), is: why are we doing this to

our agricultural community when we have literally millions of acres of

land in the provincial forests of this province that we aren't treating

properly as far as silviculture is concerned now? Why are we allowing

that ministry to step outside of its boundaries and tie up even further

land for forestry? As much as I'd like to see more forestry in our

province, why don't they place their emphasis on the land already in

the provincial forests rather than have them step outside and tie that

land up, out of the reach of our agriculturalists — as the land has

been in the Vanderhoof region, the Nechako Valley and the Kispiox

Valley for the last year? I haven't had an answer to that question, and

I'll not rest until I get an answer to that question from some minister

in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the remarks of the

minister at the beginning of his response to the last series of

questions placed by the member for Omineca, but perhaps

[ Page 3912 ]

having embarked on commenting or offering personal opinions the minister might not mind proceeding in that vein.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: No, I don't plan on going outside of the

rules which you, of course, are obligated to enforce, but I think what

I can say to the member is that under my ministry we have

responsibility for that land placed into our care and designated as

agricultural land. We have a voracious appetite, and if we had our own

way — and I want my deputy to close his ears right now because I

wouldn't want to embarrass him — we would have every piece of property

we could lay our hands on. As long as it could grow something, we would

have it within our own little domain. The fact is, though, that we have

several uses, all of which are going to take place on one common ground

called the province of British Columbia, and I think that as long as

land having agricultural capabilities is not alienated irretrievably in

the future, and if we don't require it at the moment, then it would

perhaps be generous of us to say that we'll allow some for wildlife and

some.... After all, forestry — although I'm not permitted an opinion in

that ministry — is long-term agriculture, isn't it? The only thing is

that you have to commit land not for a one-year crop, but for an 80- to

120-year crop. If it is agricultural land, and we don't require it at

the moment for agricultural production and can afford to assign it for

one cycle to forestry, then I see nothing wrong with doing that, as

long as we can assess it again at the end of the cycle, and if we

require it for agriculture we can then make it available for

agricultural leases. That's way, way out of my jurisdiction.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: I don't wish to carry that any further. I realize

the constraints which the Minister of Agriculture is under in making

the kinds of remarks that I'm sure he would like to make in regard to

the Ministry of Forests embarking on a campaign to really take more

than their share of land under their wing in the province. But I would

like to ask this question, Mr. Chairman; again, I asked it last Friday

in another minister's estimates. In a recent letter from the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing I was told: "This land-use decision has

been endorsed by the Vanderhoof Crown land planning process." I'd just

like to know from the minister whether his ministry was part of that

planning process.

While the minister is contemplating his response, there is one other

question or subject that I'd like to approach, and here again I would

like the feeling of the minister in regard to a situation that is going

on in another minister's ministry. Nevertheless, the question has a

great impact on the very people whom the Minister of Agriculture has

under his ministry. I relate to the preclearing, or what I called on

Friday the scorched-earth policy of the Ministry of Forests, where it

relates to agricultural leases. For a number of years, particularly in

the area which you and I serve, the only way in which an

agriculturalist could afford to clear and pile and burn and cultivate

and bring a new piece of land into production was to see a return for

the logging of the timber that existed on the lease prior to

application. The preclearing policy takes that possibility completely

out of the hands of the agriculturalist. The government, in its wisdom,

has deemed that that land should be precleared; in other words, that

the merchantable timber should be logged and sold by the Crown to the

industry, and that the land should be stumped and cleared prior to its

being offered to the agriculturalist — and I say again, to the complete

detriment of the agricultural industry.

For those who don't know, it takes a good five to eight years to

bring a piece of land into proper production in the northern part of

this province. Even then, Mr. Chairman, as you're very well aware, all

the agriculturalist, farmer or rancher can expect from that piece of

land is one crop yearly — not the two or three crops that can be found

in the Okanagan or the lower mainland of this province, but one crop a

year. It is very, very expensive for an individual to get into

agriculture in the northern or north-central part of this province, and

to take away the only means which that individual has to cover some of

the costs of putting that land into production is a serious concern to

me as the member for Omineca and to the agricultural industry in

general in the area that I serve.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I appreciate the good advice that I am

getting from the member and could perhaps be permitted an opinion in

the absence of a real question there. What the Ministry of Agriculture

is supporting is the concept of woodlot licences, where, if there is

merchantable timber on a piece of property and that piece of property

will eventually be used for agriculture, the merchantable timber be

made available to an agriculturalist, and the value of that timber will

be used in the clearing of that land. So long as stumpage is paid on

the merchantable timber, the revenue coffers of the provincial

government do not suffer, yet the land becomes available to the farmer

and is put into production at a much lower cost per acre. That is the

concept that our ministry supports.

MR. KEMPF: In finishing up, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly

happy to hear that is the policy that the minister supports. I wish to

tell this chamber that is not the policy being adhered to in this

province at this time. I would also say that should the Vanderhoof

Crown land plan or the Kispiox Crown land plan be put into effect,

there would no longer be Crown land with timber on it available to our

agriculturalists. There wouldn't be any Crown land at all available to

our agriculturalists. It is a self-defeating situation, one that, with

applications that are now before the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing.... It is the policy of the government to prelog this

agricultural land, and should the Crown land plans be put in place, no

future Crown land would be available for agriculture. So I would

suggest that the minister would have serious concern in both of those

areas.

[4:30]

MRS. WALLACE: I have a specific item which I want to raise

with the minister, but during the course of the debate today a couple

of things have come up that I feel I would like to comment on. The

first one is the issue of the minister's responsibility for food. It is

a relatively new issue for this particular ministry — a relatively new

responsibility — and I don't think it is one that has been discussed in

any depth in this Legislature before, but it certainly raises some

interesting thoughts and ideas.

As the minister responsible for food, certainly it puts a much

broader concept on the duties of that minister. In a situation such as

we are in today, as pointed out by my colleague from Comox (Ms.

Sanford), it seems that the minister should be involving himself a bit

more with that particular aspect of his administration. We have three

food

[ Page 3913 ]

banks in my constituency: one at the south end, one

at Lake Cowichan, and the major one — the first one — in the Duncan

area. There are some 3,000 people enrolled as recipients in that

particular unemployment centre. A lot of them are able to pay minimal

prices; people who are on social assistance or UIC are able to pay at

least the wholesale price of the food. But during the last month the

requirement for free hampers has increased.

We have an added problem, of course, with the industrial dispute in

the forest industry, which has put more people on limited or no income.

We have 150 new persons registered just in one month at that food bank.

That food bank has been in existence now for a couple of years. The

community is responding, but it's just barely keeping that operation

going. Old age pensioners are coming in with food and money; they can

ill afford it. I wonder just what this minister has done with respect

to contacting his counterpart in Ottawa. What do we have in surplus

food in this country? We've always heard that more eggs are being made

into powdered eggs than are required. We've heard about excesses in

butter. We've heard about storage of powdered milk and processed milk.

Do you know that those food hampers that go out to families in Duncan

have no fresh milk, just powdered milk? If we in this country are

making powdered milk and still have a stock of powdered milk, surely

between this minister and other ministers across the face of the

country, in conjunction with the federal ministry, there should be some

way of redirecting that food. I submit to that minister that he has a

responsibility in this new role to take some action in dealing with the

federal ministry and other ministers across Canada to see if something

can't be done to resolve this problem. I don't expect the miracle of

the loaves and fishes, in spite of that minister's calling. But I do

expect something from that minister in the way of providing food for

the hungry in this province.

Another item that came up was on quite a different subject: the interest rebate

program. It's interesting to note where we're at on that one. The history

goes back a long way, as the minister will know. When that program was initiated,

the purpose was to allow the farmers the opportunity to know what their interest

costs would be. It was pegged at 8 percent. Now we have gone through quite a

cycle, from 8 percent to 9 percent to 2 percent below prime to 1 percent below

prime. Here we are this year, and this minister tells me we're at prime.

I'm amazed that the Federation of Agriculture has said: "Well, okay.

We'll leave it to your discretion next year." Next year we're apt

to be 1 percent above prime. That's certainly the direction in which this

ministry has been going. The extra money that you are able to recoup from that

program, which you don't have to pay from out of that program.... The

saving to the ministry by changing that rate.... A lot of loans have been

prearranged at lower rates. I'm surprised that it's as low as the figure

is by moving it to prime; I would have thought it would be more. I just feel

it's undermining the whole purpose of that program to tie it to prime or

move it up and down. The purpose of the program was to ensure that farmers had

some advance knowledge of what their capital interest costs would be in order

to plan ahead. It's a big investment, high capital, as the minister knows.

It's something that goes on and on.

I want to talk to the minister about the bees — not the birds and

the bees, just the bees. I have mentioned this before to the minister.

I asked him what he knew about bees and honey. I'm sure he'll recall

that correspondence. I won't repeat what he told me. However, I do have

some concerns about what seems to be happening particularly here on

Vancouver Island, where a lot of the bees are put out into the forest

stands during the summer, where the fireweed grows up after the land is

cleared. Of course, the legislation provides some quite firm

regulations as to what shall happen: a person shall not possess bees

that are not registered under the act; no person shall put bees onto

property without the consent of the owner of that property.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do the bees know that?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I don't know if the bees know that — and

probably they don't — but what I am concerned about is that apparently

the bees' owners don't know that, because the bees' owners have been

taking in hives and setting up a little colony on some of the forest

land without the permission of the forest company which owns that land.

Of course, there are concerns about disease, and also there are

concerns about the amount of feed. There is an unwritten rule, as I

understand it, that no two colonies will be closer than a mile and a

half from each other, but that's not happening. I've had some

considerable correspondence with the bee inspector on this, and I have,

as I said, spoken to the minister about it. We're getting more and more

bee-keepers now on the Island — more and more people involved — and

they're forming themselves into little associations, and the

association then sets up the little colony on the forest land. But then

those people, who are pretty small-time operators really but have

banded together to make a fairly equitable kind of an arrangement where

they can go in and set up their colony, are in competition with some

commercial firms that have been established for some time. The idea is

that you go into a new growth area, you set up your colony and the

fireweed comes on. As the trees grow up it becomes a poor area. So a

lot of those early establishments for the commercial enterprises are

now not adequately feeding those bees, and they seem to be moving them

in close proximity to some of the newer establishments such as the

associations.

Now there again seems to be an unwritten rule that the inspector, if

he has to cause one colony to be removed because they're too close

together, looks at the one which was first registered. He seems to have

some reluctance to act and, as a matter of fact, has referred it to the

Attorney-General, because what is considered the first registry date?

Is it the registration for the original colony or is it the

registration for the newer colony which is in closer proximity to the

new establishment? I've had many bee-keepers in and out of my office

expressing concerns over this, and one commercial enterprise just moved

their bees in without the consent of B.C. Forest Products, who happen

to own the land and were not familiar with the act. I sent them a copy

of the act, and they promptly got the people out.

There is a lot of confrontation developing there, and it's something

that is going to accelerate because of the accelerated honey production

on the Island. I guess there actually is a need for greater areas.

There seems to be some sort of playing-off one against the other — the

small operator against the commercial — by saying: "Well, we'll set

this area aside for clubs and we'll set this one aside for commercial."

There are two areas that I have in mind: Shawnigan Lake and Meade

Creek, where the private operators were in there and the commercial

company brought theirs in; and apparently at Shawnigan Lake the

commercial people had had their bees in there and were infringed upon

by the bee

[ Page 3914 ]

keepers' association, I think from Victoria in that

instance. I see a lot of conflict developing there, and I hope that the

minister has had time since I spoke to him to review the matter and

take some action — or at least be prepared to consider taking some

action — to ensure that we do have a viable honey industry.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, let me address the member's first issue before I forget, and then I'll come back to the bees.

My ministry is called the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but the

mandate of my ministry is not to be responsible for food wherever it

happens to reach, or else I'd be responsible for all the kids' lunch

baskets. The reason it was expanded from simply the Ministry of

Agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is that the

canneries and other foodprocessing companies were involving themselves

in food whose primary source was not only the land; it could also be

water, like oysters. All of a sudden we had applications from oyster

growers, who didn't really belong in Environment or in federal

Fisheries or in any of these places and yet wished to be recognized for

the contribution they were making to the food industry. When the

ministry was expanded, it was expanded with that in mind. Since then

we've had ongoing negotiations with exactly those people whom I used as

an example. They would very dearly love to be a part of the Ministry of

Agriculture. Yet in a technical sense they don't belong, do they?

[4:45]

I welcomed the idea of expansion, but certainly not with the idea of

usurping responsibilities regarding food which belong to the Ministry

of Health. For instance, licensing food-dispensing places doesn't

belong to my ministry; it's not part of my mandate. Nor does the

responsibility for providing the money to buy food belong to my

ministry. Under my ministry we can discuss the production and

processing of food, but when it comes to some of these other areas in

the distribution of food — for instance, retail outlets, etc. — they do

not come under my ministry, and for me to even make an observation in

those areas would be out of order.

Coming to bees, I'm glad to hear what the member has to say about

bees. I listened very closely, because in what she says may well be the

answer to the bee problem. It's almost impossible to enforce any kind

of isolation between bee colonies unless the distance between them

is.... I don't know how far that distance must be; I'd have to check

with the bees, and last time I checked, their communication system was

broken down. The presence of disease in a colony, which of course could

very easily be transmitted to another colony, is of major concern. Yet

the only way my ministry could be certain or give any guarantees in

this regard would be to have an association of beekeepers — not "many,"

but "an" — which could help us in the drafting of enforceable

regulations. Right now we're certainly responsible for the regulations,

but when you try to draft workable regulations you find out that

they're nearly unenforceable.

An area in beekeeping in which our ministry is involved in a

positive and progressive manner.... It used to be that if we wanted to

buy our colonies, we had to buy our queen bees from some other place,

usually south of the border. The assistance we have given there is in

providing moneys for research to develop our own queens, so that we can

develop our own local colonies and so that we don't have the

introduction of mites and other problems from the far south, which

could eventually bring us real problems in the beekeeping industry.

But as far as the complex problems of trying to keep the hives

segregated is concerned, I know it's a difficult problem, and I do not

have all the answers to it. I think that we need to work together to

see whether we can't find answers to those problems.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister is answering

questions that I didn't ask, but that's okay. I know about the queen

plantation that you have going at Powell River, I believe. That's a

good program. But I don't know what's happening.... That's at Powell

River, I believe, that Queen plantation that you have going. I've heard

some good things about it, and I've heard some bad things about it.

Certainly it's a good idea to try to become self-sufficient in queen

production. I have no quarrel with that.

But I don't think this is so complicated to enforce. The only

question seemed to be whether it related to the first date that that

particular person had applied for any or all of the sites, or whether

it related to the site that moved in on somebody else's territory. I

think that someone in the Attorney-General ministry could probably give

you an

interpretation of that pretty quickly. Otherwise, I don't know

why you would hesitate to enforce the regulations.

Regarding your remarks about your responsibility for food, I turned

around and picked up the act. It's interesting to note what it says:

Section 4 is "Purposes and functions of the ministry." Subsection (

a) mentions "the production, marketing, processing and merchandising of

agricultural products and foods."

Section 6 says: "The minister may

empower a person or class of persons to collect information, subject to

the conditions the minister may prescribe, respecting the production,

marketing, processing and merchandising of agricultural products and

food." It seems to me that you could make some inquiries under those

sections, at the federal level, to see whether some food could not be

freed up for the needy.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have an idea that I would like

to bounce off the minister vis-à-vis the food problems in this

province, which a number of our members have been talking about this

afternoon. It may be an idea that the minister may wish to also discuss

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). Various

municipal jurisdictions in the province of British Columbia —

particularly cities and towns — often have pieces of land that are

sitting waiting for developments or they are vacant and doing nothing.

Sometimes they're in public ownership and sometimes they're in private

ownership. Many times those pieces of land will sit for a number of

years and nothing happens on them, except that they grow weeds and

collect derelict automobiles, etc., An idea would be to work with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs on trying to develop a program with the

various municipalities for the use of those pieces of land in these

times of recession — to encourage the owners to use them for

agricultural purposes.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Garden plots.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes. I know that in my riding there are a number of pieces of land sitting vacant. Very little happens

[ Page 3915 ]

on them. There are many others. It would just take

a bit of organization, a few ideas to come — a spur, a catalyst, a

suggestion from the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to

perhaps put forward to the UBCM, for instance, and say: "Look, why

don't you encourage agricultural use of that land during these

difficult times." It might be an idea to use the food that's generated

there for the various food banks that are in need. It's just an idea

for the minister. Perhaps he would care to comment.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It doesn't need a lot of comment; it's a good idea.

MS. BROWN: I have a very short question to the minister: is

it part of your role to take aggressive action to protect top-quality

agricultural land from assault, even by a municipality? In Burnaby we

have the richest agricultural land in North America right in the Big

Bend area.

AN HON. MEMBER: In abundance.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We can feed the world because of the

fact that you can get two and three harvests a year from that land.

What happened is that because of the highway system, in collusion with

the municipality, a part of that land was carved out. The new Marine

Way went straight through the centre of it. On one side of Marine Way

the land is still being used; on the other side there is some concern

as to just what is going to happen to it. Does the minister see it as

part of his role to intervene directly if there is even the slightest

threat that the municipality of Burnaby or anyone else has any idea of

using that very rich land for anything else?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I know that the member for Burnaby only

said it in jest, but to feed the world from Burnaby is not that

far-fetched an idea. In my last observations in Holland, for instance,

under glass, the capacity for production is unbelievable. For instance,

just for some comparisons: cucumber production is up a multiple eleven

times per square foot under glass over what we would do in the open air

here. To think that we couldn't do exactly the same thing in all the

backyards of all of Vancouver is not that far-fetched at all. It's a

good idea.

Now about the aggressive action. We allow the aggressive action of

my ministry to take place through the Land Commission, and we support

the Land Commission. I don't think that you could say they go out there

and swing swords, but what happens is there is an aggressive protection

that happens about that land. Unless someone can convince the

commission or the Environment and Land Use Committee that some other

use — a compelling use — is more important than the preservation for

the production of food, it stays.

MS. BROWN: I'm really pleased to know that the minister feels

as strongly about that. It's not a very large area, but it certainly is

a very rich area.

One of the things I observed when I was in Italy was that when they

were passing farmland — trains or highways, or whatever — they went

over. They didn't do what we in North America do, which is just run

straight across. Mind you, they're growing grapes, and maybe what you

get from grapes is more important than what you get from cucumbers, I

don't know. But it seemed to me that that's a better way of treating

your very rich, arable land. I was very concerned when the municipality

and the Ministry of Highways approved of sending a strip of highway

right through the richest land that we have. I would really like the

minister to give an assurance that in any future plans of that nature

you would take into account the overpass concept. I know that all of

your colleagues are travelling all over the world, and I would suggest

that maybe you want to whip in to Rome, or somewhere like that, and see

how they use the overpass method to protect the arable land, because

they're busy farming underneath there all the time the trains, buses

and cars are going by. It's a concept that I would like to see us use

more of, when you take into account what a small percentage of the land

that we have in this province is really arable.

[5:00]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, when I was over there, I

was impressed with the land management concepts that they had. They

preserve a little patch. Please remember that their ground is quite

similar to ours, at least in southwestern Germany, where I was. They

will preserve just a little patch. Even though the incline might be

quite steep, they'll preserve it, because its number one use is for the

growing of grapes.

I think that we have only just begun to do that kind of thing in the

province of British Columbia. But to see it happening someplace else

where people have lived for many more generations — many, many more

hundreds of years than we have here — to see them handle the land as

carefully as they do is a real encouragement. It was a real

encouragement for me.

MS. SANFORD: The minister spoke a moment ago as though he was

totally in support of the preservation of agricultural land in this

province. If you look at the budget you can certainly see the

antagonism that the government has towards the Agricultural Land

Commission, because it has been left with a total of $80,000.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The commissioners have $80,000. It's right there on page 40 in your book.

What this means is that those commissioners are not going to be able

to travel the province; they're not going to be able to take the same

interest in the preservation of agricultural land as they have in the

past. They have effectively been grounded, because with $80,000 you

simply cannot travel with a minimum of five people in order to have

hearings around the province to ensure that the agricultural land stays

in the agricultural land reserve. I am very concerned about that. I

feel that it demonstrates a definite antagonism, and I'm certainly not

convinced by this minister that the government is keen to preserve

agricultural land for agricultural production.

At the moment there are only four commissioners, unless there has

been an appointment within the last few days. The act requires that

there be five, so I assume that unless there has been an appointment

within the last couple of days.... Has there been, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right, that takes care of that. I was concerned that they wouldn't be able to function at all. The

[ Page 3916 ]

act would prohibit them from doing so without five commissioners.

One of the newspapers from the Coquitlam area quotes Mayor Sekora

about the future of Colony Farm. He expresses great concern that Colony

Farm may not remain as agricultural land, and I have the same fears. I

have expressed them many times in this Legislature. The mayor talks

about the interest that Marathon Realty has displayed in that

particular piece of property.

The minister will no doubt get up and say that the land is now under

the jurisdiction of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, but I would like

the assurance from this minister that the government will in no way

entertain any application to have that land removed from the

agricultural land reserve. I feel confident at this moment that if a

request is made to the Land Commission, they will turn it down

unanimously. But I'm not as confident about an appeal, which the act

allows, directly to the cabinet. I would like the assurance from the

minister today that there is no way his government will entertain any

application to have that land removed from the agricultural land

reserve through his cabinet committee.

Agricultural land is too valuable. The minister spoke a minute ago

about the desirability of encouraging more gardening in back yards. The

allotment gardens that were started in 1973 or 1974 were an excellent

idea, but they have not been promoted since then. We've heard very

little about allotment gardens. The program, which got off to such a