[ Page 5225 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

Oral Questions

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 5225

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

Ocean Falls Corporation. Mr. Lockstead –– 5225

Mr. Barrett –– 5226

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

On vote 13: field operations –– 5227

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 14: economics and marketing services –– 5229

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 15: financial assistance program –– 5230

Mrs. Wallace

Division on an amendment

On vote [6: information services –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

Division on an amendment

On vote 17: Milk Board –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 18: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

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

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

On vote 20: building occupancy charges –– 5237

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 20 –– 5237

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 21: computer and consulting charges –– 5238

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 21 –– 5238

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lea

Division on the amendment

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5241

Mr. Hall –– 5241

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5242

Second reading –– 5242

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

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5242

Mr. Macdonald –– 5242

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5243

Second reading –– 5243

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

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5243

Mr. Levi –– 5243

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5244

Second reading –– 5244

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

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5244

Mr. Levi –– 5245

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5246

Second reading –– 5246

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mr. Jerry Kebe of Radium Hot Springs, B.C. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming him to the Legislature.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today another group of school children from beautiful North Vancouver–Capilano. They are 25 students from Hamilton Junior Secondary School. With them are 25 students from la belle province de Quebec, from Cardinal Roy School in Quebec City. The students from North Vancouver are under the guidance of Mr. Evan Stephens and Mrs. Alma McDougall. The students from Quebec are under the guidance of Mr. R. Robichaud and Mr. J. Maleux. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to British Columbia.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Betty Ann Haglund from Cranbrook, along with her friend Shastin Hellberg, who is visiting from Sweden. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

Also in the gallery this afternoon is Ruth Mitchell-Banks from the Creston Arts Council and Alderman Meta Beduz of Creston. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon also.

MR. GABELMANN: In the Legislature today visiting with us is a group from Campbell River representing sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, the council of Campbell River, the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, the chamber of commerce, and just about every group in Campbell River. They are down here today to attempt to meet with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) about the Quinsam coal project.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Ford Warner, accompanied by Mrs. John Alexander of Santa Barbara, California.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to recognize a visitor and also to recognize a very special week. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell you that in your gallery today is Professor Gayle Gilchrist James, the vice-president of the International Federation of Social Workers. Mrs. James is from Edmonton, Alberta, and I would like to ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.

I would also like to draw the House's attention to a very special week that recognizes some very special people, and that is the volunteers of British Columbia. This is Volunteer Recognition Week, recognizing that one out of every four British Columbians give themselves in volunteer service.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment Management Act.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The National Council of Welfare report entitled "The Working Poor" reveals that families cannot earn enough at the minimum wage in order to escape poverty. For example, the poverty gap for a couple with one child and only one earner working at the minimum wage in Vancouver in 1980 was $3,434. That's the gap between what they are able to earn at the minimum wage and what the poverty level is. For a couple with two children it is $4,990. Given that in 1977 there were 50,500 young family units in the category of working poor in British Columbia — 12 percent of the national total — and that today the situation is far worse, can the minister advise the House whether he has decided to increase the minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer as of right now is no, I have not entertained that proposal. When you look at the minimum wage established across the country, I think you will find that British Columbia ranks fairly close to the top, with the exception of Saskatchewan, which is something like 15 or 20 cents higher than British Columbia; I believe the highest is in Quebec, which is something like 25 cents. I'm not sure about those figures.

MS. SANFORD: In view of the fact that the cost of living in British Columbia, particularly because of the outrageous cost of housing, is much higher than in most parts of Canada, including Saskatchewan, where the minimum wage is higher than in British Columbia — S3.80 rather than $3.65 — would the minister consider raising the minimum wage at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: That is future activity.

HEALTH OF MINISTER OF TOURISM

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Deputy Premier. I wonder if the Deputy Premier could advise the House as to the health of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). The Minister of Tourism has missed the last three question periods in a row. I'm wondering indeed if we should send sympathy or get-well cards or something like that, as we miss her very badly in the chamber.

The point is that I've had a question awaiting the Minister of Tourism's arrival in the chamber for other than voting since we got back from our extended Easter break. I'm wondering if we should send out a Canadian Armed Forces plane or something to look for her.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. On April 24 the minister issued a news release stating it would require only a modest investment to establish a plant using the new manufacturing process for wood pulp and wood panelling at Ocean Falls. The minister also said that there is lots of raw material available. Has the minister decided to recommend to his colleagues that this modest investment be undertaken by the Ocean Falls Corporation to revive that corporation and that community from the doldrums imposed by the Social Credit government?

[ Page 5226 ]

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. On April 13 the minister wrote to the Canadian Paperworkers Union refusing a request for a meeting to discuss Ocean Falls on the grounds that there is no information readily available on what we're trying to do in the forest or with this low-grade timber.

Has the minister found out what he is trying to do, and can the minister advise the House whether he has decided to open up the process to the people of Ocean Falls for their input?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can certainly appreciate the member's interest in Ocean Falls. About all I can tell him at this time is that we are indeed making great progress.

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

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister instructed the British Columbia Development Corporation to loan money to a private buyer to purchase Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I would have to advise him that I don't instruct the British Columbia Development Corporation to do anything. The British Columbia Development Corporation is very well run, and is managed by an independent board of directors. It's not within my capacity to instruct them to do anything. They work independently. Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, they make their own decisions.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question — how am I doing, anyway? — I would have to inform him through you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see all of the applications for financial assistance that come to the B.C. Development Corporation. However, I would be most happy to inquire if such an application has been made to the B.C. Development Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: has the minister established any criteria for the sale of Ocean Falls in terms of the price, foreign ownership, new investment plans and that kind of thing?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member, I would have to say that I sincerely feel that last question has really been answered by the previous set of answers.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask this question of the new minister. Could the minister tell us if British Columbia Development Corporation has been instructed that the policy of the government would allow them to loan money to a private group to buy a government Crown agency?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I would have to inform him, through you, that the policy of the Development Corporation is to assist the economic development and industry where it's economically feasible and good for the province. The rest of the question I'll take on notice.

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

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister: has a decision been made that money would be available from the British Columbia Development Corporation for a private company if they were to purchase a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'd have to say that he has posed a hypothetical question. If such a case came, we'd certainly look at it in view of the overall benefits and what it would do for the economy and the forest sector and all the other ramifications. We would look at it at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister advertised the policy that, project by project, government money might be made available for private corporations to buy companies from the government?

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

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After saying it had not been advertised, but admitting today that the possibility is there, does the minister have any knowledge whether or not discussions have taken place between a private corporation and BCDC for the purpose of that private corporation borrowing money from BCDC to buy Ocean Falls?

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

I think the opposition, with respect, might be building certain things into the fact that Mr. Williston had a meeting with the Development Corporation on Friday while they were having their meeting here. I wouldn't mind telling the opposition what was up in that meeting if they were desirous of knowing and would ask me the question.

MR. BARRETT: Since the minister has told the House that he is aware the meeting took place and is aware of the contents of that meeting, does the minister know whether or not, during that meeting, there was a discussion of an application to BCDC from private sources to buy Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at that meeting.

MR. BARRETT: Now that the minister has said there was no discussion at that meeting as to whether or not BCDC would loan money to a private corporation to buy Ocean Falls, can the minister tell the House at what meeting an application by a private corporation to buy Ocean Falls with BCDC money was discussed?

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

[ Page 5227 ]

MR. BARRETT: My last question. To the minister's knowledge, at what meeting did a discussion take place — or was there a letter or a phone call — about BCDC considering the application to loan money to a private corporation to buy Ocean Falls?

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter or urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you briefly state the matter.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In a matter of days the Environment and Land Use Committee will make a decision on the stage 2 report concerning a proposed coalmine at Campbell River. The proposed mine is located at the centre of the river systems which surround Campbell River. Such a mine in this location would be harmful to the salmon fishery. In fact, the evidence suggests that a coal-mine would destroy a vital spawning habitat and the Quinsam fish hatchery. The salmon fishery is a vital economic enterprise in my riding. It depends on a clean natural habitat, which could be eroded beyond repair by the proposed coal-mine. It is crucial that these matters be debated openly before ELUC arrives at its stage 2 decision.

I would like to offer a word concerning the urgency of this debate. The Speaker's role under standing order 35 is to provide guidance for the assembly on the priority of this matter over others proposed for debate by the government. In this case the urgency stems from an impending decision by the government, most likely prior to the Environment estimates, which lacks the benefit of open public debate by members of the assembly. This is a crucial failing and one which can be remedied only by an urgent debate this afternoon. Therefore I request leave to move as follows: that the House do now adjourn to debate the advisability of permitting the development of a coal-mine in the middle of the Campbell River area.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much the hon. member's advising of his intent to ask leave to have the House adjourn for this urgent debate. I would like to reflect upon the matter that is included in this statement, without prejudice at all to the member, and on tile possibility of a further debate this afternoon. I would reserve decision until such time.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister doesn't have his advisers with him today. I have some detailed questions that I wish.... Oh, they're just coming in, fine.

Vote 13 relates to field operations. I note that there were 315 employees last year and there are 322 this year. I wonder if the minister could tell me, if I'm not asking for too much detail, how many vacancies there are presently in this particular vote and what those positions are.

I have a second question relative to staffing under this vote. How many female employees are covered by this vote and what are their positions? I realize that's a fairly detailed question. I don't know whether or not the minister will have that at hand. The remarks that I want to make about this particular vote are to quite a degree dependent upon the answer to that question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the questions put by the member are quite detailed, as she mentioned. My staff will attempt to get a response for her as quickly as possible. We don't have that detail with us.

The only point I would make refers to a question that was put on the order paper some time ago about the number of vacancies and the positions related thereto. We did discuss the fact that the normal attrition or turnover-the hirings and leavings — of staff people allows for the number of ongoing and always changing vacancies, which is usually 5 percent or so at one time. I'll endeavour to have the answer for that member as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: The reason that I'm asking under this specific vote, Mr. Chairman, is that on the list that the minister so kindly provided in answer to my order paper question there were a great many vacancies that appeared to be related to this vote.

Let's just deal with a couple of them while we're waiting for the specific answer. Two laboratory technician positions at Abbotsford were vacant back when the freeze went on and came off and they were still vacant at the latest date when that question was answered. I understand that they are still vacant, unless they've been filled very recently.

Of course there's the question of the selenium testing, which I know has been a very exaggerated problem because of the great amount of specimens that have been coming in. The point that I'm making is that we've had vacancies there. The minister indicated that he was trying to resolve the selenium thin by hiring a temporary assistant. But if we have vacancies in those trained laboratory types, either there's a terrific problem with keeping staff on or there's delay in hiring when we have those same vacancies hanging around for so long. It's a continuing problem and to try to resolve that with temporary assistance.... That's one problem that concerns me very much.

The other problem relates to the sheep specialist. I know that vacancy has been around for quite a long time. My concern there is that originally it was also advertised as a vacancy for the Kamloops area. I would hope that in the additions to staff the minister is including a second sheep specialist. If he's been looking at the figures at all, he will realize that the growth of the sheep population in the Cariboo and Thompson area is such that there are as many sheep in that area as there are in the lower mainland. There's a very definite problem for the people in that area who require assistance from the ministry relative to their sheep problems. The only assistance they can get is to get that sheep specialist from the lower mainland to come up to judge for fairs, and then they have to pay his way. What they need is a continuing person located in the Kamloops area who is prepared to come in, stay there and do the job.

[ Page 5228 ]

It was bulletined and then the bulletin was withdrawn, I understand. There was a problem, I know, in bulletining the sheep specialist in the lower mainland because originally it had one category and then after negotiations it was upgraded to a higher category and was rebulletined. Even so, that's been vacant for a long time.

Those are two of the questions that I have regarding specific things. The reason I was asking about the number of women that are covered under this particular vote and what their positions are is that there seems to be a great reluctance to hire women in positions closely related to agriculture. Women are still getting hired as secretaries and clerks in the ministry. They're really reluctant to take women agrologists — women graduates in agriculture — into the system full speed ahead. We have seen a tremendous change in the enrolment in the agricultural class at UBC, which is now almost 50 percent women. Yet when women graduate, their placements, particularly in the Ministry of Agriculture, are a very, very low percentage. This is the area that those people would basically fit into, Mr. Chairman. That's why I was asking the minister for the number of women that are employed in this particular vote and what kind of jobs they are working at. I think that the time has come when we have to recognize that some affirmative action programs have to be taken by government to ensure that women, who are moving into this broader field of endeavour, have the opportunity once they have the knowledge and the skills. Certainly my information is that women graduating in agriculture come out with very good marks — they are very high on the list of graduates — and should be very acceptable to this ministry to take on the kinds of jobs that they're trained for. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that that's not happening, that there is a real reluctance to hire women in those kinds of jobs in the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't know whether or not the minister is prepared to answer those questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member mentioned a second sheep specialist because of the increased activity in production in that sector of agriculture. I recognize her concern; we have a number of other commodity groups looking for additional specialists. We have people who are required for marketing — market development officers, research economists, etc. The member can see that we've increased our vote from a total of 315 employed in field operations to 322, so we've got a few additional ones going in there.

With regard to women, right now — I believe this year 60 percent plus of the first-year students in agriculture at UBC are women. That means that the student body is getting a greater percentage. I believe the breakdown now, if we took the whole student population, is about a 50-50 split. Some, of course, are in food sciences, economics, etc. I can just say to the member that the government, as she well knows, is an equal opportunity employer, and that applications are based on qualifications. If we have applicants come forward, then they will be judged on their qualifications. and whether they are male or female, the best one to do the job will be the one hired.

MRS. WALLACE: Unfortunately the minister doesn't have the statistics available, but I think that that's just not happening, It's a nice ideal, but it's not happening, because the women who graduate are not getting the jobs — and those women are qualified and their grades are good.

Now there may be some reasons or excuses being found not to hire the women; that's why I wanted those statistics, because I think that would prove my point that it just isn't happening. Certainly when 60 percent, including the undergrads — it's not that high at the graduating level, but it's getting higher and higher, and it's going to get up to the point where we will have 60 percent of that class being women.... As long as we find that out of the, say, 84 who are in the extension services out in the field 80 are men and 4 are women, then that's not a very good application of the affirmative action program. I can't say that that is the statistic, but I don't think it's going to be too good.

I thought about phoning the minister this morning and warning him that I was going to ask that question — I should have done that, but other things got in the way — so he could have had that material. I appreciate that he is trying to get it for me. I wonder if he would tell me exactly what the seven new positions are under the assistant deputy — regional extension, the specialists in regulatory and production.... I think there are one and two additions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch briefly on the women employed in the Ministry of Agriculture. As the member knows, 20 or 30 years ago the ratio of males to females in the faculty of agriculture at UBC was 75 percent to 25 percent. It's now shifted to where the new students come in at 60 percent female and 40 percent male. That's a trend, and I'm just saying that that trend is also existing in employment opportunities.

I'm sure the member doesn't want us to fire half a dozen existing staff members and hire females in their place. I'm just telling her that the government is an equal opportunity employer, and if over a period of time more of those professional people graduating are women, then you'll have more women in the workforce working for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the province of British Columbia.

If she has evidence, Mr. Chairman, that there is abuse with regard to equal opportunity for women in the Ministry of Agriculture regarding job applications — she knows what rights the applicant has — and if a situation has developed in which there isn't equal opportunity, I as Minister of Agriculture and Food would certainly like to hear about it and would be concerned if we weren't following the practices and policies of this government.

Regarding the number of women in the professional workforce, Madam Member, I hope that maybe, before we finish my vote — if we do so later — I will have the information on how many are employed in a professional capacity.

Taking the new employees from 315 last year to 322, I can give her some response. We have one office assistant to supply clerical support for the assistant deputy minister of field operations, one licensed science officer, one research officer, one commodity coordinator and two office assistants that I have listed here. I believe that's six.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't want to delay unduly here. I think that the minister has assured me that he will make the statistics on vote 13 available to me as soon as he has them. I don't want to hold up the vote waiting for that, because I think I have had at least some answers to my questions. In those titles that he has given me, he did talk about the sheep specialist, but he hasn't indicated whether or not a second sheep specialist is included in those extra ones. I can't really

[ Page 5229 ]

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

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

Vote 13 approved.

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this vote appears to be the only vote that really indicates that there is any change in the ministry since it has become the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There is some upgrading of this for marketing purposes, I would like to point out, as has been pointed out previously, that providing extra funding for marketing and extending the marketing facilities is not the total answer to the responsibility that a minister must meet if he is to be responsible for food in this province.

Recently I've been reading a book entitled The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard. I'm sure that the minister has read it. This is the updated version. It talks about the kind of concerted corporate effort that goes into persuading people of what they should buy, based not on its nutritive value or its economic value, but on its profit margin — not whether or not to put an egg in the cake mix but colours, shapes and sizes of boxes of food. It's really manipulating the purchaser to make a decision based on all of the wrong things, not based on economic or nutritive buys. The kind of advertising that the ministry is undertaking is a similar type of advertising except that I would say it is based a little more correctly on the nutritive value. Advertising isn't the entire answer to the food problem.

The minister will remember, as will the Chairman, the days when we sat on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture which toured this province looking at the cost of food. This report on food distribution in British Columbia points very definitely to the problems that occur with concentration. While it didn't come up with any valid recommendations, it did point out that Canada Safeway, for example, has a definite edge because of its investments in processing facilities in Alberta. It talked about Kelly Douglas as the wholesaler for foodstuffs for Super-Valu being geared in as the area where the profit was made: at the wholesale level rather than the retail level. It described the way the market was manipulated by those large chains and the growth of the chains. A chart on page 7 of this report shows that supermarkets in B.C. — this was dated 1976 — handled 72 percent of the volume in 33 percent of the stores. That's the kind of concentration that's taking place and the kind of concentration that occurred in 1976. It certainly has grown since then, I'm sure.

What, if anything, is the minister doing about that type of thing? There seems to be nothing except this marketing aspect. I submit that the whole business of food deserves a lot more attention than simply a few market promotions for B.C. product, because food relates to all food and not just that which we can presently grow in B.C. It relates to the ability of the community to purchase food. We had a question in question period today, Mr. Chairman, relative to the lowincome groups in British Columbia — the number of families that live below the poverty level. This minister, as the minister responsible for food, certainly has a responsibility to ensure that we do something more than just advertising and marketing B.C. product. I would like to hear what he has to say relative to that particular aspect of his responsibility under this vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman. the member has touched on The Hidden Persuaders and has dealt with some of the — implied, I guess — corporate abuse of the consumer. I think those things would he handled under the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

In regard to my ministry and the expansion of our man date, we wanted to promote consumption of B.C. homegrown and home-processed products, and we're working on that. Even without the mandate being changed, I think the member will recall what we did in the hog industry in this province after a very critical time. Now we have, I think, a pretty exciting hog processor taking a tremendous number of hogs — far more than two years ago. As I mentioned the other day, they couldn't even get 500 hogs a week; now they're getting almost 5,000. That is home-processed B.C. pork going on the market. It is getting a tremendous response from the B.C. consumer. because they can identify with it. They can say that that is something which will help our primary producer, the farmer, and also all the labour involved in processing that primary product. That's a big plus in the economy of the province of British Columbia. We may not stack up to the Ministry of Forests, or Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or Tourism, but that's our contribution to the economic well-being of this province. I think it's working well. So that's the promotion aspect.

We're also attempting to give out information with regard to the market research and the analysis of the marketplace. We put out the Agri-market Reporter, a weekly produce report. We put out the food-basket information, and all those things are geared to help better identify where our potentials are. You can grow all of the product you want to, but if you don't have a market for it it's not worth too much. Or you can have a tremendous market for a product or produce, but you don't have any supply, because the farmers or the processors aren't aware of the need. If we can play a small part, we'll assist in identifying that need, and therefore the British Columbia agriculture and food industry will prosper and so will the economy of British Columbia.

Those are some of the things we're doing, Madam Member. I guess we're all frustrated with how slow we go at times; but at the same time. we've made those moves. We've attempted to develop a strategy and an organizational chart in our ministry to identify where the opportunities and the pitfalls are and to provide support to the agriculture and food industry in this province. I'm hoping that in time you will come to say: "Job well done."

MRS. WALLACE: Sure, the minister is doing or attempting to do a job on marketing. But he is telling us that his responsibility for food — that added responsibility — relates just to that. If I want to talk about corporate concentration, I should talk to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I assume if I want to talk about nutrition, I should talk to the Minister of Health. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not an adequate concept for a minister charged with the responsibility for food. It relates to a lot more than just marketing, and if he's responsible for food, then he had better be responsible also for seeing that the consumers in this province have access to a nutritious diet and not just push for the highest price possible.

[ Page 5230 ]

Vote 14 approved.

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

MRS. WALLACE: This is the program I've been so concerned about in discussing the estimates. This is the vote that has chopped off $10 million from the farm community. It's even worse than that. In fact, a great deal of the money allocated for farm income assurance in this vote is going to be utilized to supplement the unpaid programs that should have come out of last year's budget. Apparently this minister never heard of a special warrant. Nearly every other cabinet minister has brought in special warrants to meet extended expenses for which they didn't have sufficient funds, but not this minister. He expected the farmer to carry those costs. He made funds available out of this year's budget to pay off things that should have been paid out of last year's budget. According to my calculations, we're down something like $5 million out of the Farm Income Assurance Fund, which isn't that great already. I admit it's a couple of million more than it was last year, but last year was really a disaster. We have had to take some moneys out of this year's payments to meet last year's.

The minister denies that he drags his feet on these programs. But when I talk to the people who grow greenhouse vegetables, apples, beef and other commodities under this program about the difficulties they are having in trying to get farm income assurance contracts finalized, it indicates to me that there is a deliberate delay to ensure that those funds are not utilized. So I certainly have some concerns about the reducation in the farm income assurance program. It is in effect a reduction. As I said, at least $5 million will have to come out of this to meet what should have been paid out of last year's estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know that there was some money that suddenly miraculously appeared on March 31. I guess he was holding too light a purse string. But even that was nowhere near enough to meet the total outstanding payments.

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

I mentioned earlier that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture at its convention passed a resolution requesting that the interest rebate be maintained at 2 percent below prime. The National Farmers Union was here very recently and met with the minister and ourselves. Their brief contained the same request — 2 percent below prime. I have a letter here addressed to the minister, copy to all MLAs, from the Vancouver Island Dairymen's Association requesting that the interest rate be maintained at 2 percent below prime. I have a letter to the minister from the Cowichan Agricultural Society and Farmers Institute requesting that the interest rate be maintained at 2 percent below prime. I have a letter from the British Columbia Broiler Hatching Egg Producers Association requesting that the interest rate on reimbursement be kept at 2 percent below prime.

The minister indicated that he is being inundated with these requests. I hope the minister is reconsidering. I would like the minister to assure the House today that he is reconsidering changing that, and that instead of 1 percent below prime rate this year he will continue the rate of last year, which was 2 percent below prime. At today's escalating interest rates, that is little enough to give the farmer. He is caught in a financial bind; he cannot get that rate in the marketplace. As long as this minister maintains a hard line on farm income assurance, the farmer is not going to get it from farm income assurance. Without some kind of change in that program, he is not going to be able to continue to function. Two percent below prime is all that the farmers are asking. I think that is little enough. Certainly there should be a change in the limits as well, because at today's high capital costs the limits on that program are not adequate to meet the requirement to keep that farmer viable and in business. I would certainly suggest that the minister change his avowed intent to go to I percent, and retain the 2 percent.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't want to delay the House from moving on to other votes; I just want to respond to some of the issues raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat and first of all to say to her, as I've said publicly, not just to the agricultural industry but to many sectors of it, that in this province we do not judge the success of the agricultural industry based on the number of dollars placed in a budget.

In regard to the slowness of farm income assurance, no, Madam Member, we are not dragging our feet. We consult with and discuss the input costs into the Farm Income Assurance Fund; we reach a consensus; the documents are signed and the program is put into effect. If there is retroactivity in there it is taken into consideration. We have done that with a number of programs. Other programs haven't been resolved yet. There are two parties to that discussion. I can assure you and the farm community that we are not dragging our feet. It takes my staff plus representatives of the commodity group to come together to discuss the issues. Those will be resolved as soon as possible. If there's payment required I'd just as soon have the payments made on farm income assurance as quickly as possible, rather than have long-outstanding commitments.

In regard to interest rebate, I can tell, Madam Member just to give you the history, because you're so concerned about the $10 million reduction — in 1975-76 the NDP government budgeted $2.5 million and paid out $1.5 million. They shorted the growers of this province approximately $1 million, or to turn it another way, about 40 percent. You underspent your budget by 40 percent. If you're going to argue with me that I have shorted the growers of the province, then you'd better look at some of your own history. You know as well as I do that you had your percentage set, and you didn't adjust it down when the interest rate dropped in those years.

In 1978-79 we budgeted for $4.5 million, and because interest rates started to rise we spent $6.9 million. We had that commitment and we lived up to it. We overspent our budget by $2.4 million. Sometimes the opposition gets mad when we over spend; here we did. We're prepared to accept any objection to that, but because of politics I don't think the member would dare say that we shouldn't have paid that money out. We budgeted $7.7 million in 1979-80 and we spent $7.7 million — right on target. That was for the interest paid by the farmers in 1978; we reimbursed them in 1979. In 1979 we made a commitment — and I've told this story before — to the agricultural community that we would pay interest reimbursement down to 9 percent. We caught the rising interest rates, but we lived up to that commitment. As I mentioned, our budget for 1979-80 was $7.7 million. Our

[ Page 5231 ]

budget, because we made that commitment in our expenditures in 1980, for the year 1979, was $23 million. In other words, we contributed another $16 million to take some of the load off the farm community.

We can't treat agriculture in isolation in this province, because if we do there are other sectors of our economy that are going to say: "Why this large discrepancy between the interest rate charged and what you're refunding to the agricultural community?" So when the member says our budget has dropped $10 million, there is a difference between the year before and last year — 1980. There's a difference of $16 million. So I could turn your argument around and say we've expanded our budget in interest reimbursement considerably, because we've only reduced it by the $10 million that you talk about, although the year before it was $16 million higher than we anticipated.

I just say, yes, we've had letters, because I guess the agricultural community would like to keep the program as it is, but they knew two years ago that our policy was 1 percent below prime. We phased it in at 2 percent, and then 1 percent. I told them at that time it was an ongoing program and it would be at 1 percent below prime. It is just now that we're starting to get the letters coming in from the various commodity groups saying they'd like us to leave it at 2 percent below prime. I've got no argument with that; that's good business technique on their part. But I can say that we have to look at these programs and ensure they are credible with economists and other provinces of Canada. Otherwise, if we are too far out of step in the agricultural community we can be criticized.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister hasn't really answered. Would he tell me definitely if he is going to change from 1 to 2 percent or if he is sticking with his commitment to 1 percent below prime?

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, he had a lot to say about the interest reimbursement. Somehow he seems to think that because he is spending more dollars than were spent a few years ago, he's doing a better job on that particular program. But, you know, when interest rates are low they don't need that kind of assistance. It's the escalating interest rates that have caught the farmer in the bind, and that's been occurring in the last few years, not back in 1974 and 1975,

This vote, as bad as it is in its reductions to farmers, carries something in it that one would scarcely believe. It carries some fairly extensive increases in programs for travel, advertising and publicity, and professional services, The travel budget has increased. The staff is down by one in this particular vote. The actual grants and subsidies paid to farmers are down by $8 million net. Yet we find an increase of $4,500 in travel for one less person. That particular budget has gone from $150,000 up to $155,000. Advertising and publicity: you've got less money going out and fewer programs — established programs, nothing new — yet we're finding that advertising and publicity has gone up by 95 percent, from $17,000 to $33,000.

Most startling of all is that professional and special services, a vote that is being decreased as far as services to farmers and ranchers, is being upped by 250 percent from $400,000 to $1.2 million. I'm sure the minister is going to get up and talk about this being for training and so on. I'm wondering how much of this particular professional and special services budget. which has gone up by 250 percent.... Isn't there a good possibility, in view of the kinds of things that we've been hearing lately about the policies of this particular government, that some or all of that fund could find its way into the hands of our would-be Hollywood North Cecil B. de Heal for directing some kind of a show? Maybe we're talking to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and maybe we're talking to the would-be Yul Brynner of the next generation.

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

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

I object to this kind of an increase going into this vote for those kinds of operations where we don't know what's going on and where it could well be directed into political propaganda. That's the concern that we have in this Legislature. We have professional services and advertising going up while services to the people that that minister is supposed to be serving are going down. We have taxes placed on the backs of the taxpayers, as I said when I moved an amendment previously, to the tune of $625 million, and yet we have these kinds of excesses appearing. We have a 95 percent increase in advertising and publicity and a 250 percent increase in professional and special services in a vote that has reduced the return to the farmer and reduced the amount of money that's going out to assist the farmer and rancher in this province.

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

I believe I have made my case that those particular funds in that budget should not be there in a year of belt tightening. The government should be prepared to hold the line on things like professional and special services, publicity and advertising, and travel, when we have one less person on the staff and when we have asked the taxpayers to cough up dollars to meet the commitments to provide Hollywood theatre and political propaganda. I am pleased to move this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

[ Page 5232 ]

MR. HALL: Did I hear the name Jordan?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes.

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

Vote 15 approved.

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

MRS. WALLACE: This vote, again, has a 30 percent increase in advertising and publications. That particular item has jumped from $19,000 to $24,600, on a relatively small vote.

I therefore move that vote 16 be reduced by $5,600. That's simply taking it down to the amount that was expended last year. I think the minister should be prepared to hold the line.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 20

NAYS 27

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

Vote 16 approved.

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on this vote I notice that the staff is reduced and there is an increase in professional and special services. Obviously this is intended to shift salaries into professional services rather than doing the job themselves. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale behind this particular change. I notice that in other areas in other votes the opposite is occurring. This seems to be the only vote for one of the boards he is responsible for where the staff has been reduced and there is an increase in professional services.

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

MRS. WALLACE: What's bothering me — not bothering me particularly; I'd just like an explanation — is that in this particular board there is a reduction in staff and an increase in professional and special services. I'm wondering why the decision to take that type of change was made. Was it a request from the Milk Board or is it a decision that's been taken by the minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I understand from my staff that the reduction in the Milk Board from ten to nine was because one staff member went on a per diem basis in regard to the Milk Board operation. Regarding the professional services, the anticipated increase was in regard to legal expenses, staff training and education expenses.

MRS. WALLACE: So he's on a per diem. He doesn't show as an employee, but this additional person is included in the salary vote. The payment for the tenth person is included in the salary vote here even though he doesn't show on staff. Is that what the minister is saying?

Why is there a 300 percent increase in these legal services for the Milk Board? Are you anticipating some problem under professional services?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Madam Member, I guess there are always a few problems that we anticipate, but there's nothing particular. Those are the recommendations put forward by the Milk Board in regard to possible costs incurred. You'll notice that I said legal plus staff training plus education expenses. It covers three items.

Vote 17 approved.

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to give credit to the minister for upping the amount of money allowed for fine-tuning in this vote. I would like to see it twice as much as it is this year. At least it's in there, and it is increased. That's something that I think we have to get on with. I'm pleased to see him doing that.

My question relates to a switch in reverse of the Milk Board. Here we have the professional and special services cut to almost bare bones and a very sizeable increase — almost the exact amount of difference — added to temporary salaries. I am wondering what the rationale is for that and whether or not that was a recommendation of the Land Commission when they submitted their budget. I would also like to know whether the Land Commission's budget was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and in turn simply turned over as part of his estimate. Or did his ministry, in fact, make any revisions to the original submission from the Land Commission? And I would like to know what the $250,000 worth of "other" is.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, as you can appreciate, some of these questions are somewhat detailed, and in order to respond in a reasonable fashion I have to get some comments from my staff. The member is quite right in regard to item (04) — salaries, temporary — it's gone up from $116,000 to $393,000, and professional special services has dropped from $334,000 down to $66,000 — it is a reallocation of jobs being done under temporary salaries, as opposed

[ Page 5233 ]

to professional and special services, and, I think, an attempt to get better coordination and better results for our dollars expended.

In regard to the "other" — item (90), the $250,000 — it deals basically with maintenance of the agricultural land that the Land Commission holds and equipment, etc., that is on those various farm operations that the Land Commission is responsible for.

MRS. WALLACE: The one question the minister didn't answer was on the mechanics of this vote coming to the floor of the Legislature. Was this the original submission by the Agricultural Land Commission, or were there any changes in it before, as it came from them?

I'm also really curious why we've decided to go this route with the Land Commission by hiring temporaries rather than professional services, while the Milk Board decided to go the other route. Now if that's the decision being made independently by those boards, that's fine, and something that would be better discussed with the people involved in those boards. But it's interesting to note that one is going one way and one the other.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, just quickly relating to the comment I made on the Milk Board, Mr. Honeyman was on a salary and Mr. Jim Gilbert is on the per diem; so they're a little different than what we're looking at in the Land Commission where we're talking about professional services and temporary staff. We're now really talking about planners, agrologists etc., working on detailed applications of plans, community plans, settlement plans etc., in the Land Commission office — better coordination, I think, in our administering the money than with spending it on consultants' fees.

In regard to the budget, the budget was prepared by the Land Commission personnel, reviewed with my staff, and then proceeded to Treasury Board.

MRS. WALLACE: No changes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm advised there were very minimal changes in regard to my staff's involvement with the Land Commission. The member may wish to ask another question, and I might get some more detail for her.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm really interested in his staff's involvement with the Land Commission. Would these be the agrologists who work for the ministry and also work for the Land Commission? Is that the group he's talking about? Is that your staff that you're talking about — with whom the changes were made? I don't understand what he means by "relative to his staff" unless that's what it is.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I follow the member correctly, in regard to coming out of the professional and special services budget and going into "salaries — temporary," those are temporary staff in the Land Commission office, not my ministry staff. It's the Land Commission staff. Instead of going out, hiring a consultant and paying a fee, it may be the salary of an employee. Are you asking whether it's my staff they're paying for, whether my ministry agrologists may be working for them? No? Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: I understood the minister to say that the only changes that were made in the budget as submitted by the Agricultural Land Commission were changes relative to his staff, and I'm trying to find out what his staff has to do with the Agricultural Land Commission. Maybe I misunderstood the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Agricultural Land Commission budget comes forward and goes to Treasury Board, and any cuts or adjustments are basically made at Treasury Board. In regard to my staff's involvement, bear in mind I'm the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission. My staff employed in the Ministry of Agriculture are my advisers — professional people whom I call upon for input and advice. If we're getting into any discussion, I turn to my staff people for their input as well. The Agricultural Land Commission reports to me, prepares their budget, and submits their budget to the Treasury Board. Treasury Board determines whether or not their budget, as submitted, is accepted, or whether there are some cuts — not my staff.

MRS. WALLACE: I hate to belabour the point. but I think it's worthwhile we get this absolutely clear. When I asked the minister whether that budget came to him and was passed on to Treasury Board without any changes — just as submitted by the Agricultural Land Commission — I understood him to say: "Yes, except for some minor changes affecting my staff," or "...by my staff," or "...related to my staff." If I misheard that, then I would like to have that corrected. The thing I'm trying to establish is whether or not the ministry is in any way involved in the preparation of that budget or the finalization of the estimates for the Agricultural Land Commission, or if the Agricultural Land Commission is autonomous in the preparation of that budget. I seem to have had two answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Agricultural Land Commission prepares its budget. My involvement is mainly that Mr. Newman of my staff and my deputy minister advise.... They see what the Treasury Board rules are. The Agricultural Land Commission's budget goes through Treasury Board and its staff with my support. The determination as to what cuts, if any, shall be made is made no differently than in any other ministry or commission that's involved in budgeting through the Treasury Board and its staff.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to get this very clear. Maybe I'm not quite grasping what the minister's saying. The Agricultural Land Commission prepares a budget which goes directly to Treasury Board, or it goes by way of the ministry, without any changes, to Treasury Board, and then Treasury Board makes any necessary cuts or changes. I'm not sure which. Is that the way the thing operates, or is the minister or any of his staff involved in any way, through advice or telephone conversations, with the Land Commission as to what their budget should or should not contain, or is that something that is strictly the responsibility of the Land Commission?

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

Vote 18 approved.

[ Page 5234 ]

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting — the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; ICBC — senior citizens' grant. How ridiculous to include a grant to senior citizens relative to ICBC in the Agriculture and Food estimates, just because this minister happens to be responsible. It has no business in this estimate at all. I know I can't refer to legislation, but there is a bill on the orders of the day that relates to this. This could be made an appropriation bill rather than being in the estimates. Certainly it doesn't belong in the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I therefore move that vote 19 be renumbered to vote 95(a) under the Ministry of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment is out of order. A vote may be passed, reduced, or withdrawn by leave, but it cannot be redirected. I therefore find the amendment to vote 19 out of order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Beauchesne, May....

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would cite May's seventeenth edition, page 759, which says you cannot alter the destination of a grant. That is redirecting it, and that is what your amendment has referred to. Therefore I find your amendment out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order, I don't quite understand. I'm not changing the direction of the grant; I'm just changing the position where it appears in estimates. With all due respect for the Chair, I don't quite understand the interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I further cite Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page 759: "The Committee of Supply cannot attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a grant or alter its destination." On the basis that this amendment does attach a condition or an expression of opinion, I would find that the amendment fails.

The hon. member continues on vote 19.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on your ruling, if I may. We do not attach a condition to the payment of the grant. We're quite in accord with paying the grant to the seniors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I also find that we cannot debate that amendment. I further cite Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 649, on Committee of Supply, that no amendment is in order except a simple reduction of the amount demanded. That is the ruling. I'm afraid that your amendment does fail and that we must direct our debate to discussion of vote 19 and whether or not it shall pass.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in view of that ruling I have no alternative but to ask the minister whether or not he would be prepared to withdraw this estimate. Certainly he would have the leave of the opposition should he decide to withdraw it and transfer it either to the Minister of Finance, or as part of the ICBC amendment bill to make that bill an appropriation bill. Certainly one of those places is where that particular money more adequately belongs. It doesn't belong in the votes for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to take that step: to remove it from these estimates so that we'd have a more realistic figure, and instead of looking at an 11.8 percent increase or whatever it is, we'd be looking at the true increase for Agriculture and Food of 1.9 percent in total. If there's anything that the opposition can do to facilitate such a move, we would be very happy to cooperate. If I can't do it by the rules of the House — and I certainly don't want to offend the rules — I'm sure that the minister could take that action.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to express to the member that it's unfortunate that we always refer to percentage increases in minister's budgets, and that's how you base the success of an enterprise or industry in this province. I've read statistics in this House that show the growth and stability of the agriculture community in this province, but nevertheless they come back and say that we inflated the budgetary figures because we included under my budget the $6 million for the senior citizens' ICBC grant.

They fail to recognize that I have responsibilities as a minister of the Crown. First of all, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I am responsible for that ministry and must report and speak for it. I am also the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission; in the past it was under the Ministry of Environment. Since I have that responsibility, I include in my budget the funds for the Agricultural Land Commission. It is a commission separate and apart from my ministry, but I am still responsible for it in this House. Therefore the budgetary figures show under my ministerial budget.

The ICBC senior citizens' grant is no different. I am the minister responsible for ICBC in this House. As a result I must carry those responsibilities. In regard to the grant to senior citizens to assist in covering their automobile insurance, that figure of $6.13 million falls within my budget.

I could give a comparison that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) may or may not accept. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) administers what is called the First Citizens Fund in regard to grants to the Indian community.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Victoria says from his seat: "That's always the catch-all ministry." It may well be, but the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) also happens to be responsible for provincial Indian affairs, in liaison with the federal government. I feel that where the responsibility lies, that's where the budgetary figures should be. That's where they are and I'm prepared to accept them as being in the right spot.

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

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

[ Page 5235 ]

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

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm the most agreeable guy in the whole country. I'll withdraw the word "deliberately." He did distort the facts of the case — accidentally, stupidly, ignorantly, or otherwise.

What the minister has done is say that he is being accused by the opposition of padding his estimates by the inclusion therein of this $6 million vote for a senior citizens' grant. That is not a true statement. At no time have we made that statement. What we have said to the minister and other ministers is that, yes, they have padded their estimates, but it has been on such items as travel expense, office expense, office furniture, advertising — you know, Doug Heal and the Hollywood crowd who are going to use that — B.C. Systems Corporation payments, and B.C. Buildings Corporation payments for building occupancy charges. There were six items. At no time did anybody say that they were padded because of this item called ICBC in here.

The minister should be candid enough, truthful enough and considerate enough of the integrity of this committee — I was going to say considerate enough of his own integrity — to be able to tell the truth in the House and not distort things. I'm not saying he has not told the truth. He has taken the course of twisting and distorting what the position of the official opposition is, and that's unpardonable.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment — since the member for Skeena got up and made his little dissertation — that considering the source it came from, I have no response to his comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, at this point let the Chair remind you once again that a feature of parliamentary debate is always parliamentary language, good temper, good humour and above all, courtesy to all hon. members.

MR. BARBER: Vote 19 parades under false colours. It's part of an estimate within the larger estimate of Agriculture and Food, and if people simply looked at the total budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, they might be tricked into thinking that somehow Social Credit had been more generous than it really has been with the agricultural industry and the whole economy of British Columbia.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: It seems to us that if the government were even half competent, they wouldn't have attempted — in the way that they attempt in this estimate — to, if you will, misinform people about their intentions and to leave the wrong impression in the agricultural community. I agree entirely with my colleague from Skeena when he says that the traditional and tricky budget padding that goes on, as we have discerned in many previous estimates, lies in deliberate overcharging by the B.C. Systems Corporation and the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

We have at hand — and I will refer to it only very briefly — Bill 9, the Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, which may or may not become law. I would like to observe to the committee that if this were an efficient and businesslike government, it would not put the current estimate we are debating in the form of an estimate within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is in the wrong place. It serves a good purpose, and we support making the grant available. We support protecting senior citizens from the ravages of Social Credit's ICBC. We also support good and competent administration and observe that if you knew what you were doing, you would put it as an appropriation section under Bill 9, the Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act. It is parliamentary, correct and traditional to do so. I'm not commenting on the merits of Bill 9, but I'm observing that it is before the Legislature. It seems to us to be, far more appropriately and traditionally, the repository of such a grant that the government proposes to pay and we propose to support — for senior citizens and the burdens they have to carry for automobile insurance.

With all respect this particular grant does not belong in that minister's estimates. There is another instrument and another legislative option available. You needn't take my word for it. Look in your own bill book, Mr. Chairman, and discover what Bill 9 says and tell the committee why Bill 9 is not an appropriation bill. Tell the committee why, instead, you propose to put this money, estimates that do not belong in there and cannot rationally be justified to be in there, under Agriculture and Food estimates.

This is the year we have Bill 9 in front of us. That being the case, it is perfectly clear that there is a correct and businesslike way of spending these funds on the order paper today. Make it an amendment to Bill 9 and we'll support it in that form. We'll even support it in this form, because we wouldn't want to see the seniors deprived. Nonetheless, we observe the simple incompetence of a government that proposes to spend these millions for seniors in the wrong place and could instead have put it in the right place as an appropriation section of Bill 9. I ask the minister to tell us why he wants the money spent in the wrong place. It should be orderly. It should be under the bill which he himself has authored and is before the whole Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the first member for Victoria made passing reference to a bill, which, of course, we cannot discuss in committee. Some latitude was given. However, I think at this point we should cease and desist from any debate regarding legislation that may or may not be before the House. We are in committee. If we could stick to vote 19 as it stands before us, the committee would be well served.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise is that you have now ticked off the first member for Victoria for referring to something other than what is precisely in the estimates before us. When the minister was speaking earlier, you permitted him to make reference to the Attorney-General's department. the Provincial Secretary's department and the First Citizens Fund — things that have nothing to do with the item before us. Why do you pick and choose that way, Mr. Chairman?

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

[ Page 5236 ]

item to the debate. They are allowed some latitude. such as the first member for Victoria was allowed. I am simply reminding the committee now of the rules before us: we do not discuss legislation when in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Victoria talked about the ravages of ICBC under Social Credit. I guess he meant the fact that we feet strongly that premiums should pay for claims. Where claims go up, premiums must be increased to pay for those claims. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I can remember the ravages that we inherited. We're talking about $6 million here for the senior citizens' discount. There were ravages of $181 million at the end of their term on ICBC, and we're still paying for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind the minister that we have allowed a lot of latitude on this vote. If we could return specifically to vote 19, the committee would be well served.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the reason I refer to the $6.13 million in vote 19 is that it is paid for by all British Columbians out of general revenue as a social program for senior citizens; it's no different than the homeowner grant for senior citizens. If this allocation were paid for by ICBC, then only the motoring public would be providing a social program for senior citizens who drive. I think that's a fair approach to it. Mr. Chairman, I make a passing reference that the legislation before the House is a social program for senior citizens who drive.

The member talks about an appropriation and putting it in the bill. I could be wrong, because I'm not — in his mind anyway; I don't know about mine — an astute parliamentarian. I would assume, Mr. Member for Victoria, that, first of all, this is an ongoing budgetary item. The bill brings forward the concept, the principle and the program. The budgetary figures each year are placed before this House to carry out that ongoing program. If there were an appropriation, an appropriation bill would have to be brought forward every year in which it would be paid. I'm just saying that instead of having senior citizens await a bill, to find out whether or not they're going to get the benefit of that type of social program each year, I'd much prefer to have it an ongoing program and a budgetary item.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: The minister seemed not to get the point. For that matter, seniors also have to await estimates every year. You have not required that there be a provision in estimates every year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you read Bill 9?

MR. BARBER: I've read Bill 9 very closely. You could write it down to a dollar. In fact, there's not even a dollar provided in Bill 9.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's a plus, anyway. At least you've read something.

MR. BARBER: Of course I've read it, and I understand it. And I understand that you cannot tell us what the value of the seniors' discount might be or whether it will even be required next year. We don't know what the FAIR program will do next year — we don't know it and neither do you. However, we're well aware that the government has chosen not to use a more appropriate means of this particular expression of public policy; they've not tied an appropriation to the current bill.

If your argument is that you intend it to become a permanent feature, there are two other options which, I argue, are far more relevant and appropriate than including it under the Ministry of Agriculture. The first is to allow the minister, by amendment to Bill 9, to make a payment. But I won't refer to that except in passing, Mr. Chairman. The second is to accept our proposal to withdraw it altogether from the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — where it does not belong — and put it instead under the portfolio, the obligations and the estimates of the Minister of Finance, who will then be required annually to include in his estimates — according to the instructions of Bill 9, which I do not otherwise refer to — such payments as ICBC may require in order to provide the seniors' discount. It belongs in Finance more than it belongs in Agriculture. This year it belongs in Bill 9 more than it belongs in Agriculture. In either case, for either reason, it does not belong in Agriculture at all. It has nothing whatever to do with the agricultural policy of the government of British Columbia. There is no relation whatever except this: it does tend to give a somewhat inaccurate picture of the government's fiscal commitment to the agricultural industry of British Columbia.

Once again, we ask the minister whether or not he's prepared to withdraw this particular estimate and reassign it to the Minister of Finance, where it belongs, and thereby indicate more accurately, as he should, the real public expenditure in Agriculture this year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment. I wish the first member for Victoria would get together with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), because the member for Skeena is saying one thing and the member for Victoria is saying another.

But no, Mr. Chairman, I feel that vote 19 is in the proper ministry, because as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I have an additional responsibility for ICBC. I think the vote is in its correct place. I would not recommend any change.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is a social program, and it's in the correct place, because that is the minister in charge. What I am standing in my place for is to express my amazement at this opposition who say they are for it but yet they're against it. They're for it because they want to get the kudos. We ask no kudos; we merely say senior citizens are entitled to it, and they've got it year after year. We want no accolades, but we do not want this water-cutting system of the opposition saying: "Yes, it's great, but it's not in the right place; just delay it." I hope that the senior citizens out there hear the message: "Delay the estimate; another time, delay! They're really not worthy of it, and maybe something will happen and they won't get it." Yet on the other hand they're saying: "Oh yes, we are champions." In their three and a half years in office that opposition never championed a social program that was any good — not one. Every social program was done by our government. They had great ideas, but they did nothing, not one single social program. And here is a valid program and they say: "Delay it." I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, it's high time the public realized what they're doing here.

[ Page 5237 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to make the record show very clearly that there is no intention of the opposition to delay this program. Apparently the member for Dewdney never heard of interim supply, Mr. Chairman.

This is a social program which we support, but we don't support having it show effectively as being a charge against Agriculture; that's what we're opposed to. Certainly we support this move, and we've tried the best way we know how to get it moved to a proper place. We failed in that, but we've made our case. We have no objection to the senior citizens' reimbursement going through. We're prepared to support this, if we have to support it; but we would have liked to have seen it handled in a different way. That's the only point we've been making. There is no attempt to delay.

Vote 19 approved.

On vote 20: building occupancy charges, $3,840,000.

MRS, WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being out of order, the minister did say he would try and give me some figures on vote 13 before his votes went through, and I see his assistant is back. Perhaps he has those figures now. By leave, could he give me those figures.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Dealing with some other vote, which I won't mention at this particular time, the vacant positions were six. The number of vacant positions was 28, and I have a list of the vacant positions in the various locations in British Columbia. Do you want me to read this for the record, or could I send it to you?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like it in the record.

HON. MR. HEWITT: District horticulturist, Duncan; urban horticulturist, Cloverdale; potato specialist, Fraser Valley; district horticulturist, Summerland; district agriculturist, Abbotsford; dairy specialist, Prince George; research officer, Kamloops; agricultural officer, horticulture, Kelowna; livestock specialist, Prince George; office assistant, Victoria; two agricultural engineers, one in Dawson Creek and one in Abbotsford; biologist, Victoria; lab technician, Kelowna; two agricultural officers, brand sector; home economist with regard to youth development, Vernon; laboratory scientist, vet lab, Abbotsford — I hope the member appreciates these are hand-written notes that have just come in to me.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I appreciate your giving this.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Then we have a balance of some farmworkers in the Fraser Valley. That should total up to 28. The number of women who were previously in these positions was one. The number of women in positions in vote 13 is 100. One position is presently vacant. I believe that's at a vet laboratory in Abbotsford. It's a laboratory scientist, and that position has been vacant since March 31, 1981 — a fairly current position.

Also for the record, I might add that we have over 550 employees working for the Ministry of Agriculture. I mentioned retirements and people leaving employment. Our vacancy vote at any one time is approximately 5 percent. Those jobs are advertised, interviews are held and those jobs are filled as quickly as possible. On the average there are usually 20 to 30 jobs for new staff vacant and being researched at all times.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister very much, and I thank the House for its leeway. I wouldn't like to reflect on a vote that we've already dealt with, but it's interesting to know that 28 of the 38 vacancies are in the field positions, and only one of those that the minister read off was an office person in Victoria. So 27 of those positions vacant are field positions.

Vote 20 — building occupancy charges. We have a 25 percent increase in building occupancy charges. That's right, 25 percent. We in the opposition do not believe that these kinds of increased costs are in keeping with the policies of a government that is asking the citizens to tighten their belts by increasing taxes, I therefore move that vote 20 be reduced by $762,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: The amendment is acceptable.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the member for Skeena cannot make a comment on behalf of the government, because he's in opposition, where he's always going to stay.

In regard to the amendment, I do not support the amendment and will vote against it.

MR. NICOLSON: It is in this area of building occupancy charges that we see a tremendous increase in almost every ministry. This one is no exception. There is a 24.8 percent increase in one year — an amount which we're talking about in this amendment of $762,000. The minister gets up and simply says that he isn't going to accept this amendment in a time when we've seen taxes skyrocket in this province to the injury of other industries such as the tourist industry. I think that we're due some better explanation. I simply would like to know in what buildings the ministry is located here in Victoria? What increase in square footage has taken place or is projected to take place this year in order to justify such an exorbitant increase? We really should be in a belt-tightening year. When everyone else is belt-tightening, why should there be a 25 percent increase?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the amendment, I appreciate the fact that the member for Nelson-Creston comments about belt-tightening, etc., I can advise him that in many cases the additional expense was created by our having moved in, expanded or improved accommodation part way through the past fiscal year. Now, of course, it’s in for a full year. That is the reason for part of your 24.8 percent.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, 24.8 percent.

There is one reason for it. The other reason — in order that the opposition may consider withdrawing the amendment — is that we have projects on stream at the present time with regard to renovations in Kamloops, the Land Commission, Fort St. John and Cloverdale totalling approximately $116,000. We have proposed projects which are renovations

[ Page 5238 ]

in Nootka Court, Saanichton, Kelowna, etc. for another $109,000. So there are three things: projects in process at the present time; proposed projects in this fiscal year, plus some of those expansions we did part way through the previous fiscal year for which we're now absorbing the full cost for a full 12 months; and the adjustment in regard to the amount charged by BCBC to ministries just because of increased costs of occupancy.

MR. HOWARD: I just have one brief comment to this, Mr. Chairman. In the fiscal year 1978-79 the minister overestimated building occupancy charges to the extent of $144,560. He overtaxed the citizenry of this province by that amount in this department alone in order to have $144,000 extra at the end of the year that he could give back to somebody to build up some kitty for electoral purposes. That was in 1978-79. In 1979-80 the amount of overestimation with respect to building occupancy charges was $532,534. There was overtaxation to that extent, in that year, in this ministry alone for building occupancy charges. We don't have — or at least I don't have — the figures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, but in the ten-month period ending January 31 of the immediately past fiscal year we find that while the budgetary estimate was $3,078,000, the expenditure was $2.5 million. There's a half a million dollars short there. If you just take the normal progressions and add another couple of months you'll come out that there is an overestimation in that as well.

We've got a history of this ministry and this department overtaxing to pay rent to BCBC, knowing full well that they have no intention of paying the amount of money that they come to the Legislature for. That's why it's necessary to have the minister tighten his belt a little bit and save the folks of this province of bit of money and level with them and say: "Look, we really don't need all this money. We're overtaxing you in order to build up a surplus for some other purposes." That's not an honourable way, I submit, to approach the Legislature in asking for funds.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In quick response: for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, we have spent all in the budget, Mr. Member. I've been so advised by my staff. If we had the cushion that you talked about in there, and if we do all of this overexpenditure, it would seem to me that we would be using it in 1981-82 instead of raising sales tax. Your argument falls short in the comments that you've made.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 20 approved.

On vote 21: computer and consulting charges, $421,450.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I must ask that when a division is being taken in the House members retain their seats during that division, to help not only in the preparation of the list but also in double-checking the list, and secondly, because of the very fact that we are here primarily to have votes recorded in this chamber, that silence be maintained during the reading of the lists. That is something that must be adhered to by all members.

MRS. WALLACE: This vote relates to the computer and consulting charges, and on the surface it looks like it might not be too bad, going from $408,400 up to $421,450. But if you do a bit of review you find that the $408,400 budget had certainly not been anywhere near expended up until 10 months. The 10-month actual was $284,222. Projecting that at the same rate for the subsequent two months you would come to a net expenditure of $341,066 — well below the $408,400 thousand that was estimated. It appears that there is quite a drastic underexpenditure here in the past, and to increase it by some $13,000 is quite an unnecessary move. It seems, in fact, that we could well reduce these computer and consulting charges in the amount of $60,000 and still allow ample funding to provide the same kind of service the minister had last year. I therefore move that vote 21 be reduced in an amount of $60,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE. Speaking to the amendment for a reduction, I can only assume this amendment will be turned down, as have been the others I have proposed and as have been similar amendments proposed by my colleagues in other estimates.

I have in my hand a book. It's fairly large because it is in draft form. It's just being prepared for the printer; it hasn't gone to the printer's yet. The title of the book is New Democratic Spending Cuts. The text is being prepared. It will include the various amounts of extra funding that have been included in the various estimates in the budget this year. It will go on to point these out. It will contain certain charts and graphs which will point out the amount of funds that could have been saved had those amounts of money been reduced. In fact, had the Forests ministry reductions been taken from the budget, we would have saved the taxpayers $12 million. The Universities, Science and Communications....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is not in the estimates of the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. The member is in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and she should keep her remarks limited to that scope.

[ Page 5239 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must agree that a fair point of order has been raised. We are on vote 21. I know that the member was just getting to vote 21.

MRS. WALLACE: That's correct On the Agriculture and Food estimates which we have been discussing, had this amendment, together with all the other amendments that have been proposed, been accepted, we would have reduced the Agriculture and Food estimates by the amount of $1,760,565. I think we have quite definitely indicated those items to be excessive expenditures somewhat without direct controls. There's no real way that the taxpayer can know whether those dollars are going into the hands of the Hollywood North corporation to present the kind of images that we were beginning to see, the kind of thing that was done when the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was answering questions today.

Including this particular amendment and all the other Amendments, a total of over $16.5 million could have been saved the taxpayers in these estimates. That's why we're moving these amendments, that's why we support this amendment and that's why we're looking forward to publishing this new book, New Democratic Spending Cuts, complete with illustrations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the latitude of the Chair. I'd just like to deal with the amendment before the House, which I do not support. I say to the Agriculture and Food critic in this House, who stands so strong and firm on behalf of the farmers in this community, that she fails miserably. The vote that she's trying to cut.... Let me ask her some questions. Are you prepared to cut the farm rebates that you argued so strongly for because you want me to take out a portion of my budget for computer accounting? Do you want me to stop the market information program that I have scheduled in there to tell the consumers of this province the cost of food and to try to find out where our markets for our products are? Do you want me to stop the crop insurance payments to the farmers you know in the Cowichan Valley? Is that what you want? I suggest it is. Do you want me to cut our 4-H programs for $7,000? You know full well about the 4-H program in this province and you want that cut as well.

I just think it's marvellous how they can stand up and be so pious and righteous and attack the budget, yet they can't be prepared to back it up with facts. They attack computer accounting costs and want me to cut those programs. That computer accounting expense is there to provide services to our farmers, Madam Member, and you should support it 100 percent if you are a good Agriculture critic — which you are not. Mr. Chairman, I'm totally opposed to the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we are not asking the minister to cut any programs. All we are asking is that he retain the same level of computer and consulting charges as he spent last year, when he had a larger budget for the farmers than he has this year. It's interesting to note that I really must have been successful in these estimates. because when the minister started he said what a good Agriculture critic I was and now he's saying I'm not. I think he's been a little bit concerned by the debate that has been raised today.

HON. MR. McGEER: This amendment, like the other fiscally irresponsible amendments put forward by the NDP must be rejected. I find that the sense of values and proportion brought forward by the opposition deserves careful scrutiny. We've listened to the NDP in these estimates, as once before, pleading for special interests in British Columbia. It went on for almost two full days — pleading on behalf of the lawyers so there could be more for them. We heard the opposition critic on medicine pleading a special case for the doctors. We've heard everything come forward — pleading for special treatment for the teachers and for the unions. Every one of these was done to increase the expenditures to the public and decrease the efficiency of government. But when it comes to the things that really count, where you can spend a few dollars and save millions in the public purse, that's when the NDP disappears entirely. In a vote like this there's no obvious way to bring votes from the special interest groups of British Columbia — only better government, something they didn't understand when they were in power. They only understood how to curry to the special interest groups. When they were in power they only understood how to provide favours to the unions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Except for the Egg Marketing Board. That was when the then Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, decided he was going to kick the censored out of them. That was one special interest group he didn't get along with. The Agriculture minister of that day took milk of amnesia; he couldn't remember what was going on.

They're there to speak for the vested interests in British Columbia. They're there to see costs go up by hundreds of millions of dollars, as they did when they were government. But when it comes to commonsense management, or when it comes to building up the information system in British Columbia so programs can be handled more effectively, that's when they want to cut. They're proud of it, Mr. Chairman. They bring forward the book of spending cuts, and they hold it up for the province. With wise management, people will never see how many hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost by the vested interests they would pay off the lawyers, the teachers, the trade unions and the doctors. None of that would show. Only the carelessness and inefficiency shows. That's when you take over government. That's what happened in 1972. That's when he people of British Columbia let their guard down. But they didn't let it down in 1933.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. McGEER: They didn't let it down in 1937, 1941...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order'.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...1945. 1949...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...1952, 1953. 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975 and 1979, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. hon. member. We're now on the amendment to vote 21.

HON. MR. McGEER: They won't let their guard down now. I only say this, Mr. Chairman....

[ Page 5240 ]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, as a member who has been thrown out of this House for merely quoting standing orders, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to enforce order with that member when he deliberately disregards the authority of the Chair, which is attempting to call him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a fair point.

HON. MR. McGEER: Is it so wrong to relate the penalty that would come to the people of British Columbia for cutting down the very vital management of funds and programs which come through modern information systems? That's something that the NDP is incapable of understanding. Heaven knows, they certainly messed up the computer program when they were in charge of government.

I can tell you, from the experience I had in managing a different portfolio, how important this is. When we were in the Ministry of Education they hauled up these files. You know, they had them on a chain. All the files were hanging, like laundry, from the chain. And they wound it around like this. This is the kind of information system we took over when we became government. It applies as much to the Ministry of Agriculture in this particular vote as it does to every other one. But no, they want to live in the past. They want to pay off the vested interests. They don't want to bring in modern management. We saw that when they were in power. Now we're seeing it again. They're going to put out a booklet of how to live in the past. [Laughter.] The story that really should be told in British Columbia and never has been properly told is the full story of NDP mismanagement when they held power between 1972 and 1975. That's the story that should be told. It's being revealed bit by bit with these irresponsible amendments that the NDP is bringing forward. We must reject these amendments, just like the people of British Columbia have rejected the NDP in election after election.

MR. COCKE: We've been subjected once again to the speech that we've heard so often. I would hope, particularly on this vote, that the minister will not be influenced — that is, the Minister of Agriculture and Food — by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the biggest wastrel in the government. Look at what happened to the health system when he had his hand in behind the former Health minister. Look what happened out at the university — a white elephant hospital built at the people's expense.

That's the man that we are supposed to be listening to, and he's supposed to be advising the Minister of Agriculture. He wrote a book at one time talking about antiquity, politics and paradise. He should go and reread that inspirational little piece of literature, and come back into the Legislature and make sense. I would hope that the minister will do what's responsible; that is, vote for this resolution — a resolution reducing this amount by $60,000. It should be reduced more.

HON. MR. McGEER: One day the full story of the NDP years in office will be told. I want to say this. If there were politics in paradise between 1932 and 1972 when the NDP or its precursor, the CCF, first reared its ugly head here in British Columbia, that paradise soon began to disappear between 1972 and 1975, when the public of British Columbia let their guard down and let these incompetent wastrels into office. Reject that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: We think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications protests. That is the very member who last year came to this Legislature and asked for $50,000 for his computer. He'll be lucky if he spends $10,000 this year. In other words, what we voted for last year is about $40,000 towards monuments and things that are going to be built out of accumulated surpluses.

That's what we're objecting to in this particular vote. We're not against agriculture. We're not against youth Programs. We're not against farm income assurance and every other program. What we are saying is that this figure is not a true figure. It wasn't a true figure last year. Mr. Minister, at the rate that you're going, you're going to be underspent by $67,000 on last year's budget. You came to this Legislature and asked for $408,000. How much have you spent to date? You've spent $284,000. If you keep going at that clip there's going to be $70,000 going into one of Gracie's monuments or going into some kind of a last ditch effort to buoy up this sick, rotten government.

We are in favour of agriculture, but we want to see an honest budget. We are willing to spend honest dollars in an honest budget. We want to see those things done responsibly and to see these figures become more than just mere fiction. We want to see real, accurate and defendable expenditures, not this mythology that we've been living with in this vote, computer and consulting charges, and in many others. There's the person who asked for $50,000, and he's going to spend $10,000. Here's a minister who asked for $408,000 last year, and he's going to under spend by about $67,000. What we're voting for is an increase in your budget, even with this particular cut.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, briefly to correct the record — because the member for Nelson-Creston is wrong as usual — before the final adjusting entries are made, I can tell the member that, yes, our budget was $408,400 for the year ended March 31, 1981, but the actual expenditure to March 31 was $372,834. That happens to be 91 percent expended.

MR. LEA: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was absolutely wrong. You know, he didn't have his heart in it. He just wanted to show us once again the computer-like brain that memorized all of those numbers — 1933.... He's quite good at that. The only thing he can't do is be innovative. We have got over there the most highly educated computer that's ever come into the Legislature. He's having a little difficulty with his programming.

Wasn't it a weak effort, Mr. Chairman? He just felt that he had to come in here and make a speech. It was such a weak effort that we wonder whether Dianne will be able to take his place. She's going to have to fill the glasses of that great brain who's memorized numbers from 1933 — skip a number here and there — right up until now. We have been privy here today to the ravings of an absolute genius. We'd like to thank the minister, because we all have children who are thinking of a higher education. Maybe this will put them off a bit. If it doesn't, maybe we can chain him up. If he's going back to university, can you imagine our kids coming home from four years in university saying, "1933, 1947...?" Let's get that guy back in university where a brain like that doesn't harm anything.

[ Page 5241 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 21 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be reported in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill 9.

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBIL
INSURANCE GRANT ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to make a few comments in moving second reading of Bill 9. As we are all aware, the purpose of the bill is to provide for a program to give financial assistance to senior citizens with respect to the basic compulsory automobile insurance. You will recall in 1979 we had unanimous agreement in this House regarding the passage of the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act, which stated that all good drivers would be treated equally with regard to age, sex and marital status. Up until the time that act was passed, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had a policy whereby they allowed a 25 percent discount to senior citizens on their automobile insurance. The legislation, of course, negated that program, and ICBC could no longer offer that discount to seniors.

I'm pleased to say that as a result of discussions and a proposal that I put forward, this government came forward with what I call a social program that maintains the 25 percent senior citizen's discount for automobile insurance without affecting the principle of the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act or the FAIR program. I feel it is warranted, being no different than the homeowner grant for senior citizens, whereby they get assistance covering taxes on their property. I feel it's realistic and warranted for two reasons: (1) The senior citizen on fixed income at times cannot meet the inflationary spiral we're faced with. This does give a little bit of relief to them. (2) It is a recognition of the contribution our senior citizens have made to the province of British Columbia in the past. You might say that in the twilight years they have some relief given to them in recognition of what they've done for the province of British Columbia.

The legislation will apply, as I mentioned, to the basic compulsory insurance costs. As members in the House know, there is a budgetary amount in excess of $6 million in my ministry's budget to cover the cost of the discount for the year 1981. Mr. Speaker, with those remarks I would now move that Bill 9 be read a second time.

MR. HALL: The official opposition will be supporting the bill on second reading. In doing so. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the minister that he must be a latter-day convert to what he just read out. I don't want to belabour or delay the smooth passage of this bill. I'm sure there must be many, many senior citizens who are anxiously awaiting some response to those forms they're filling in at the agents' offices as they have been doing since November 1980. I do want to say that those words we just heard from the minister do fit rather strangely on top of the words he said when he was asked all the questions about this particular program. He said over and over again that there wouldn't be any second thoughts by the government, that there wouldn't be any change in the government's position and that. In fact, FAIR is fair.

In fact, when the FAIR program was introduced, this member, as I mentioned only last week in committee, suggested to the minister that one of the results of the FAIR program would be indeed the loss of the discount for senior citizens and that we should consider ways and means of helping senior citizens to get over that increased burden of their automobile insurance premiums going up so horrendously in one year. I made a suggestion to the minister that perhaps it could be phased in over a period of time, as we're phasing in other aspects of that FAIR program. But no, the minister turned a deaf ear to that.

It wasn't until the full political consequences of their actions were measured and balanced that we saw the political response by this cabinet and by this member. So now we have the bill. We welcome it. It's late. It was, as I say, a response to pure political action. It had nothing to do with twilight years or nothing to do with all those things that that member just said. It's in response to straightforward political action by the old-age pensioners of this province, and the old-age pensioners are to be congratulated for having the wit to get political action going. It's nothing more and nothing less; there is no commitment to anything other than the ballot box.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps the minister would find out for debate on committee stage whether or not the discount is being applied to as much as the discount used to be applied to. Again, perhaps the minister would listen to the debate on his bill. Characteristic of the minister's behaviour during estimates in committee, Mr. Speaker, is the minister's very short attention span. Perhaps the minister

[ Page 5242 ]

would find out for the House and give an answer during committee on whether or not this discount applies as much as it used to do. I understand the discount only applies to the basic insurance, not to any extension — not to third-party extension, not to collision extension, not to fire and theft extension and not to comprehensive extension. I believe — although I am not sure — that the discount used to apply to those extensions in the years gone by. Perhaps the minister can find that out for me.

The third point I wish to make in second reading is that I'm disappointed that the bill itself doesn't carry with it its own financial underpinnings, its own supply and money. There is no reason at all why this bill couldn't have had a section in it that said: "Moneys sufficient for the purpose contained in this act shall be secured from the general revenue of the province." We've seen other bills do that; I can't understand why this bill didn't do it. Then we wouldn't have had the peculiar and unsatisfactory situation whereby we see the money for this bill in estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's far better for this bill to have taken with it its own financing. When we voted for this bill, the bill itself would have produced the money, from a legal point of view; obviously a bill itself cannot produce money. I don't want to get into any debate on money production. But it certainly seems to me and to the official opposition that it would have been a far better legislative method for this bill to have carried with it its own financing, as so many bills have done in the past.

With those three points dealing with the general principles of the bill, this opposition will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The principle of the bill was to provide a senior citizens' discount on the compulsory aspect of automobile insurance. The legislation I referred to earlier passed in 1979 said, in effect, that all insurance coverage should have equal premiums, and there should not be discrimination with regard to age, sex or marital status. Hence the need for the bill. The bill covers basic compulsory coverage only, as did the program in place for ICBC prior to the legislation passed in 1979.

In regard to the comments made concerning including in the bill an allocation section whereby the funding would be in the bill, I guess it's a matter of opinion whether you do it by a bill or in a budget. I for one like to see it in the budget. It is a budgetary figure allocated out of general revenue — part of the budget easily identified. Had you been in government putting through the same bill — you've indicated that you support it — you may have chosen the other route.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the approach to it indicating that it is in the budget of the minister responsible for ICBC is the proper format. I would not agree to any change in that format.

With those comments, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 9, Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 2.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Members will recall that in a previous session the extracting of public fees with respect to estates processed in this province was discontinued. This bill now before the House will permit the full repeal of the Probate Fee Act, which presently remains upon the books of this province. Henceforth all proceedings in the administration of estates, whether by way of probate or letters of administration, will be processed entirely through the court registries in this province in accordance with the rules of court and with the provisions of this amending statute.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that under the legislation which exists today all estate documents relating to the assets and liabilities of a deceased person, while initially deposited in a court registry, are transmitted to the Ministry of Finance. They are retained in that ministry for record purposes. They were used for the purposes of determining probate fees and succession duties, but now that they are no longer extracted the only purpose of such documents coming to the Ministry of Finance is for being retained as records.

Previously all authorizations necessary to deal with the assets of a deceased person, including access to depositories or other places where assets were kept, were issued by the Ministry of Finance. With the repeal of the Probate Fee Act, the disclosure of matters relating to assets and liabilities of a deceased person, in the course of estate administration, will be made through the probate registries, and the records will be maintained in such registries, wherever the application for probate or administration happens to be. In addition, however, in order that those persons who may have interests in estates can ascertain precisely where the probate or administration has taken place, a central registry will be maintained with the district registrar at Victoria. Therefore, following the passage and proclamation of this legislation, persons who seek information about estates of deceased persons in British Columbia will make their initial search in Victoria at the district registrar's office, and they will there be directed to the particular registry wherever the probate and administration documents are maintained, and they will be able to obtain full information from the records maintained in those various registries.

With respect to records which have heretofore been maintained by the Ministry of Finance, they will be microfilmed and also transmitted to the new central registry with the district registrar in Victoria. Therefore we will have all estate documents recorded in that one central registry.

MR. MACDONALD: Just new estates?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. Perhaps I can assist the hon. member by indicating that once the registry is established all the records heretofore kept by the Ministry of Finance will be transmitted to this new central registry, so there'll be one place to search and one place only.

With those brief but clear remarks I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just one or two very brief remarks that will not be clear, because I'm suffering from a

[ Page 5243 ]

head cold — a code in my head which I will not reveal to any members in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Sympathy I need.

I just want to say that in addition to the explanation of the Attorney-General we're seeing here the disappearance of the last vestigial remains of any tax or impost on an estate. It's true we did that last year under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. We abolished the last actual, physical collection of any taxes on estates as of March 11, 1980. They were very modest — what was left after the main action of this government in the abolition of any death duties. I think it was $25 for the first $5,000 and then $3 per $1,000 thereafter. But I think history will record that perhaps the blackest step this government has taken has been the abolition of any duties upon the estates of those who pass from this life, no matter how large that estate or how small. Of course, the effect of it is that the principle of unfairness has been introduced with a vengeance into the race of life for the children who will come after us. One child, the happy beneficiary of a very large bequest from an estate, has an unequal, unfair chance in the race of life.

Oh, no, say those who stand for this kind of a privileged class system and oppose the notion that there ought to be fair competition out there in terms of rewards for service rendered to the community, not services rendered by some deceased forebear, grandfather or parent. It's the principle of unfairness which has been embodied in this area by the last disappearance of any kind of tax on estates. I think it's contrary to what you might call the notion of free enterprise too, which is competition, but fair competition; which is equal treatment, but not equal treatment before a kind of law that allows one person, unaided by his own efforts, to receive such a tremendous advantage in life, and somebody else to have to make his own way from scratch in competition with that person.

On the rest of the bill, who can complain? There's nothing to complain about there. If you're not having the Finance ministry involved in any kind of collection machinery, then let it be within the Ministry of the Attorney-General. I have no objection to any of the other sections that I've had a chance to look at.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate may I congratulate you on your forbearance with the remarks of the previous speaker. He talked about a statute which is not before us at all. He talked about the Succession Duty Act and the estate tax act. This has nothing whatsoever to do with succession duties or estate taxes. It is true that the probate fees are going, but I can assure the hon. member that in their place will come appropriate fees charged under the rules of court to cover the cost of the processes which are to be substituted for the processes presently undertaken by the Ministry of Finance. Having so said, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 3 may I make a few remarks about some of the items contained in this bill, which proposes certain amendments to the very substantial Company Act.

Many of the changes are of a technical nature. For example, under the current legislation the majority of standard bank debentures are technically excluded from the act's definition of a debenture; the amendment proposed in Bill 3 makes it clear that only unsecured short-term promissory notes are excluded from this definition, thus removing the confusion.

One useful change proposed will be to require companies continued into British Columbia to file annual reports in British Columbia, just as British Columbia incorporated companies are presently so required.

There are other housekeeping changes. For example, section 16(4), as it presently reads in the Company Act, could be taken to mean that if a company name is given initially in both English and French. then both names must be used at all times. This was not the intention of the section, and accordingly this bill corrects the same.

Several amendments are designed to remove confusion. For example, section 35(l) presently provides for the inclusion of other jurisdictions' names in B.C. companies that are operating out of province. This provision has often confused people into thinking that such companies were not incorporated in this province. Another example: at present the law only requires directors of a company to convene a general meeting. It has been suggested that this does not require the actual holding of the meeting. While clearly this is an exercise in semantics, Mr. Speaker, to remove all doubts section 17(l) is appropriately amended.

As a final example of this type of housekeeping amendment, at present there is no requirement to file a revised consolidated memorandum when making changes to a company memorandum. This can create confusion, and accordingly this Bill 3 requires such a filing.

Some of the other amendments are designed to simplify internal procedures, such as the authorization of confirmances. These routine documents have in the past required ministerial authorization. That requirement would be eliminated under this bill. and the registrar of companies would be empowered to per-form this function.

Other amendments include moving fee schedules to regulations, and simplifying gazetting and filing requirements for extraprovincial companies.

Other amendments correct drafting errors. Others clarify provisions that have created some problems in the past. Many of these problems have been brought to the attention of the ministry by the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association and its corporate and commercial law subsection.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are confident the amendments before you today in Bill 3 will assist the public, the legal profession and the ministry in complying with the Company Act, as originally intended.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. This is a historical day for the minister. This is the first bill that he's piloting through the Legislature. When I looked over before and he had a lectern there I thought we were really going to

[ Page 5244 ]

get a high-flying job. He did all right anyway. The bill might better be called parenthetically the Correcting of Errors Act. It's a bit of a minor monument to all those people who draft legislation. The most often used words in the bill are "corrects an error." As the minister pointed out out, it is a housekeeping one.

MR. MACDONALD: Be careful — I made the errors.

MR. LEVI: No, you didn't. This was from 1977. You never made any mistakes, Alec.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm responsible for some.

MR. LEVI: My God, it's confession week from both sides here. Good lord.

I still look forward to the day when we can get legislation in plain language. If I might just quote what I feel is sometimes confusing in bills, without making reference to the content, if you look at section 17, it reads: "...is amended by striking out 'that is voidable under subsection (1) becomes void' and substituting 'becomes void under subsection (1).' "I guess you have to have about six years of university training — the Minister of Health nods in agreement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It makes sense.

MR. LEVI: He says it makes sense. He should do; he was the guy who had to draft it, read it and then leave it for his successor. I don't know whether it's possible but I would hope that some adventurous lawyer will one day write something out so that it becomes almost immediately understandable — readable is a tough one — to those of us in this House who only pick up our legal training by listening to the legally trained people.

MR. MACDONALD: Put the lawyers out of business.

MR. LEVI: That would be an intent on my part. I think that would be very good.

That's a problem, in respect to plain language. If we ever reach plain language we'll have come a long way in assisting the citizens. We, of course, are going to support the bill. As the minister said, it's housekeeping. But I do ask all those people drafting legislation to aim for plain language, something that is almost instantaneously understandable.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I've noted the comments of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), and I think all of us in the House, formally legally trained or otherwise, probably share a common desire for more in the way of plain words. As members probably know, centuries ago when private-practice lawyers as we know them today first began to appear — this was in England — they had to come from somewhere. As members probably know, what happened was that the ecclesiastical monks were those who became the first lawyers because they had some ecclesiastical training, and something developed out there called a private sector, as we'd call it today. While these fine persons were trained in law of sorts and had to do some adapting, they were totally at sea in terms of any concept of charging a fee for a service and paying a staff and an office, and they were quite unknowing — legend goes — as to how you might go about charging for your services as a solicitor in the private sector. So in early times they determined upon a course which may explain some of the volume we've seen in the centuries since. That was to charge by the page. I think we're out of the era when solicitors charge by the page, and perhaps we can pay more attention to making the word smaller than happened centuries ago. But I think the comments are well made and we shall bear them in mind. Accordingly, may I thank the member for his constructive comments and move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Company Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In moving second reading of Bill 4 may I make a series of comments about the intention of the bill. In the past several years this government has made a number of amendments to the Credit Union Act. This year we are proposing more. I should emphasize that these changes are part of a planned program designed to shape the credit union movement in this province into an increasingly vibrant force.

As members will recall, last year we introduced some accountability structures and raised the statutory reserve levels of credit unions. The year prior, we expanded the investment powers of credit unions, and now, at the request of the credit union movement itself, we are introducing amendments to permit credit unions to introduce non-guaranteed share capital. Presently all shares issued by credit unions are guaranteed by the Credit Union Reserve Board. The fact that they are guaranteed and withdrawable on demand renders them useless as' a stable source of inexpensive financing for credit unions.

In order to restore statutory reserves to provide a stable pool of net worth to meet unanticipated losses and the requirement that all credit unions hold reserves in the amount of 5 percent of total assets, we are proposing the introduction of equity shares. The basic characteristics of these equity shares are as follows:

1) Voluntary participation. No credit union will be forced to introduce equity shares. They can only be adopted by the membership in general meeting by a two-thirds majority. Since all shares are now withdrawable on demand, a member will have the option of quitting his credit union if he opposes buying the shares.

2) Restricted redemption. A member who holds equity shares will be able to cash them in only if the credit union ceases to exist or if they are transferred to a present or an incoming member. The rules of the credit union may provide additional grounds for redemption such as reaching age 65, leaving the province, or death of the member. If a member has his membership terminated, he is entitled to a refund of his equity and his non-equity shares.

3) Lien on equity shares. section 40 of the act gives a credit union a lien on all its shares and deposits. The proposed amendment continues this right, but a lien on equity shares could be exercised only if a member is leaving the

[ Page 5245 ]

credit union. This is to minimize a credit union's opportunity to manipulate its equity share account and destabilize its statutory reserve account.

4) Name of fund. Equity shares, as proposed in this bill, will not be guaranteed. To advertise or suggest in any way that they are guaranteed will be an offence. Therefore, the name of the Provincial Credit Union Share and Deposit Guarantee Fund is proposed to be changed to the Provincial Credit Union Guarantee Fund.

5) Membership rights. A member who holds equity shares will continue to enjoy all his membership rights until his shares have been transferred, redeemed or purchased. This is one of the most important features of the package. A person who has applied to withdraw will continue to have a vote in how his credit union is run until he is paid out.

6) Safeguards. The proposed amendments contain a number of safeguards from the government's perspective, as requested by the social services committee of cabinet. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the regulatory authority to restrict the number of equity shares with a par value of one dollar that a member must hold. Also the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the authority to make regulations regarding the circumstances under which, and the methods by which, equity shares may be transferred, redeemed or purchased. While no regulations are presently contemplated, the opportunity to regulate this matter closely is ensured.

Next, Mr. Speaker, as to shares of a central credit union, the present practice is continued in that central credit unions, or centrals, will be permitted to determine in their rules the manner in which their shares are redeemed or purchased. Central shares are defined to be equity shares. As to dividends, credit unions will be given the right to declare dividends on one class of shares in preference to another class. This may be an attractive marketing feature in that credit unions with equity shares may choose not to pay dividends on any non-equity shares, thus making equity shares more attractive.

As to distribution of surplus on liquidation, Mr. Speaker, since money invested in equity shares is at risk, equity shareholders should receive some potential benefit. Under the present act any surplus remaining after a credit union is dissolved or liquidated is paid over to the guarantor, the reserve board. When a credit union has equity shares outstanding, the surplus is to be divided amongst the equity shareholders on a pro rata basis. If a shareholder cannot be traced, money owing to him or her is paid over to the reserve board for safekeeping,

Mr. Speaker, despite the technical nature of many of these amendments, I'm sure hon. members will appreciate that the basic intent is to strengthen the credit union movement and further stimulate these financial institutions as a vibrant segment of our provincial economy. With those words, I move second reading of Bill 4.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we'll be supporting this. As the minister said, these are basically requests from the credit union industry. But I think it might be appropriate just for half a minute to remind ourselves how the credit unions see themselves in terms of the general banking world.

In 1975 they submitted a brief to the Senate committee on banking, and on page 19 they give a definition. They state:

"The primary objective of the credit union system is to provide financial services to its members on the best possible terms. In meeting this objective, credit unions are constantly under pressure to maximize efficiency and minimize costs. But because their members are 'owners' of the organization as well as borrowers or depositors, credit unions are not subject to pressures to maximize profits. In this sense, they are unique among financial institutions, and the difference is reflected in their price-setting policies and practices. Unlike chartered banks and many other financial institutions, credit unions — through the use of rebates on loans and dividends on share savings — set prices that reflect the true cost of providing services."

Today, some six years after that statement was put in their brief. the credit unions are under a great deal of further pressure. That relates to the changes in the Bank Act which made it possible for more near banks and foreign banks to get into the whole banking market. Also, because of the nature of the business that the credit unions have conducted in respect to the reasonable interest rates that they were charging, they were caught in a very tough situation as a result of the increasing bank rate. That has been extremely difficult for them. However, they are moving along to make the system work better.

There's one other thing that I do want to point out. Perhaps the minister, when he closes debate, can make some comments about it. It's the practice of the government to invest in securities in banks, credit unions and trust companies. As a matter of fact. In last year's public accounts. they listed some nine banks. two trust companies and a credit union. In 1979 the projected investment was set at $10 million. In 1980 it was $5 million. That's out of a total investment portfolio in this area of some $993 million. The major portion of the money that the government invests in securities goes to the chartered banks, which runs anywhere from $16 million to something like $290 million in the Toronto-Dominion Bank. I don’t know what discussions the minister has had with the credit unions as to whether it's helpful for the credit union movement to have the government participate in a larger way, certainly as large as they did in 1979. In 1980 they had cut their investment in the securities by half, from $10 million to $5 million.

The other thing is that the government has some obligation to the credit union movement. In introducing its mortgage subsidy program last year it made use of the services of the credit union movement in order to make this happen. I realize that the banking facilities of chartered banks are certainly far in excess of those that are available to the credit union. I think particularly Canadian-based banking operations — credit unions in particular — are going to find themselves very much on the outs if they're not careful, as a result of the Bank Act, as I mentioned before. All the help that the B.C. Central Credit Union movement can get.... We should be looking to the governments to put some money in there so it assists them. In this case I realize that presumably they're basically deposits, not securities.

We do have in our province a very serious mortgage availability problem. One might wonder why, for instance, there isn't any pressure put on chartered banks in this province. They're full. They're holding S900 million of taxpayers' money in investment and very little on income deposit. Discussions should be had with them in respect to what they are prepared to do for people who are trying to get reasonable mortgages. Except for the cooperation of the

[ Page 5246 ]

credit union, we have not had any bank offer anything that's reasonable to people who require mortgages. We've only had some significant cooperation from the credit union movement.

Surely there's a leverage there — or there should be a considerable leverage there, with all that money being invested in short-term securities in the banks. Some pressure has to be brought on the banks to be more responsive. It's simply not good enough to have a bank rate of 17.4 percent declared last Thursday. For some reason the banks don't seem to feel that they have any social obligation. They've not expressed that at all. Yet their profits are continuing at an all-time high and the expansion of their assets is at an all-time high. This is an area we need to concentrate on in terms of social responsibility from those major profit-earners. They are major profit centres in our country. This flows from what we are talking about. We are talking about the credit union movement, which is part of that banking operation. It is under attack in the sense that they find it increasingly difficult to do business, particularly as the bank rate goes up. That puts them in an extremely difficult position. I would be interested in the minister's comments when he closes debate.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: May I again thank the member for his perceptive comments, and just touch briefly on the last topic he raised. About a month ago this ministry organized a very useful day-long workshop on home-financing techniques for the 1980s. We invited representatives of the credit union movement and the chartered banks, among other lending institutions. It was a very worthwhile day, and the follow-through is still going on. I want to assure the member that we're certainly making it clear, at least from this ministry's perspective, to those who are prepared to come forward with innovative ideas, initiative and effort and who are prepared to show the desire to get out and help in this very challenging area of home-financing, that we in turn are prepared to show our sympathy and support. To that conference, I must say, the banks, credit unions, trust companies and other groups came equally prepared to help. Certainly, in our continuing thinking, to the degree that the chartered banks might feel, for a variety of reasons, they can't get as involved with some creative new techniques as they might, and if we feel there is room for the credit union movement to pursue some of these worthwhile avenues, we'll have no hesitation in working with the credit union movement.

I think it's important that Bill 4 reflects the fact that we listen carefully to the credit union movement. I certainly consider the credit union movement and credit unions a very important part of the economic fabric of this province. The government's support and recognition of this has, I think, been reflected in a couple of ways recently. Providing the right for credit unions to participate in the distribution of BCRIC shares and the home interest assistance program of last year are two examples. We hope that in the bill before us today the provision for equity shares is a further step in that direction.

There is certainly, in my view, the need for credit unions in the face of some of the operating challenges referred to by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). There is the need for greater flexibility on behalf of credit unions operations. There is the need for greater diversity in their potential range of operations, all, of course, consistent with, some reasonable and practical safeguards as to the range of investments and things that they can do. We hope that Bill 4 is a useful step in that direction, and with that may I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.