[ Page 7901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ministers' expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 7901

Closing of Fraser Mills. Mr. Leggatt –– 7901

Lottery Fund dispensation. Mrs. Dailly –– 7902

Family law policy changes. Ms. Brown –– 7902

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

Ministerial statement re sabotage of Dunsmuir hydro substation.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7903

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7903

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

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

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hall

Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 5 –– 7921

Mrs. Wallace

Division

On vote 6: ministry operations –– 7921

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 6 –– 7921

Division

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7922

Mr. Stupich –– 7922

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7922

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would be here to join me in welcoming two "no-show" guests from New Zealand. In the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Derek Mason of King Country, New Zealand. Mr. Mason has been a Social Credit candidate in New Zealand in the past couple of elections. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and this House, I welcome this fine couple from King Country, New Zealand, who are wearing their "no-show" buttons.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, with us in the galleries today are two members from the Queensland Legislative Assembly: Mr. C.J. Miller, who is the Deputy Speaker of their House; and Mr. L.W. Powell, who is a member of the House. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to introduce Mayor John Agnew of Mission and Mr. Bruce Webster, a member of the Mission Memorial Hospital Society. I request the House make them welcome.

Oral Questions

MINISTERS EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD: I direct a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier stated that a parallel did not exist between the case of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). Why are the cases different?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as much as the member may require it, I don't want to advise him on the difference between different situations and the legalities of them. As such, my answer yesterday still stands.

MR. MACDONALD: I put it again to the Premier that he is the one who brought up the question that there was no parallel between the two cases. Why is there no parallel? What is the distinction?

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

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question for the Premier. When was he first advised of the difficulty with the expense account...of the matter of the expense accounts of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

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

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Premier advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to have his financial director make a review of his accounts?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier another question, which he would know the answer to, I would think, at the present time. Apart from this matter of the financial director, did the Premier initiate any inquiry into this matter of accounts., formal or informal?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, was that on the initiation of the Premier, and was any other inquiry made?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have such confidence in the auditor-general that I would't be so presumptuous as to cause any other inquiry to be made.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discuss the decision — following this review — of making a refund of certain moneys to the government that related to his expenses? Did he discuss that with the Premier at any time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the line of questioning is getting difficult inasmuch as it would require answers that are already taken on notice. I'll respond to that question as part of the answer to the previous questions.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, at this point I'm asking a very simple question: did you discuss the matter of refunding money to the government with the minister? I think the Premier would know the answer to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

CLOSING OF FRASER MILLS

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests. and I ask it on behalf of myself and my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). One of the largest mills in British Columbia, Fraser Mills, owned by Crown Zellerbach, will be shut down on June 18. This will lay off another 500 workers in the province, Could the minister advise if he is aware of the imminent shutdown?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member is aware that at the present time quite a number of wood-manufacturing plants in British Columbia are shutting down because of market conditions. Most of the shutdowns are of a temporary nature to adjust to the markets, which can't absorb the products that normally would be produced.

[ Page 7902 ]

MR. LEGGATT: This particular shutdown is unique and unusual, and the minister should be aware of that, in that it's one of the largest mills in the province. I would like to ask the minister whether he can guarantee the House that this is a temporary and not a permanent shutdown. Can he also advise whether he's been in touch with the officials of Crown Zellerbach to get some assurance that this shutdown is only temporary?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, normally when a mill shuts down for a market adjustment the management of the company advises the Minister of Forests that such a market shutdown is taking place, and I have no reason to believe that this shutdown is anything more than a market adjustment shutdown.

MR. LEGGATT: This will lay off another 500 people, adding to the many that are being laid off all across the country, not only in the forest industry but in other industries as well. Do the minister and his government have any plan at all for those people who are now not merely being laid off, but are falling off UIC and onto the welfare roll in thousands every month? Has this government a plan of any kind that they can present to this House to help the thousands of unemployed who are falling off their UIC?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite amazed that the member should ask such a question. If he is aware at all of what is happening in British Columbia, he must be aware of the employment committee of cabinet and of the employment bridging assistance program that is currently getting underway in the province to help people who are laid off in the forest industry to bridge the time when they are unemployed, and at the same time work on very meaningful work in the forests of British Columbia to secure their future employment and also to enhance that resource.

LOTTERY FUND DISPENSATION

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. According to the constituency report of the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond), the Provincial Secretary, on behalf of the provincial government, challenged the local Kamloops council to a $1,000 game of bowling, the government's money to come from the Lottery Fund. My question to the Provincial Secretary is this: is it now policy that when organizations like Big Brothers require money for their good works they must gamble for the grant?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to the application for a lotteries grant in support of an association in which many teams participate in a bowling fraternity. I'd have to get further information on the nature of that application.

Interjections.

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

I think if the member for Burnaby-North were there to witness the many people who participate in these activities, she would be fully in support of the support we're giving through lotteries to these organizations.

MRS. DAILLY: The Provincial Secretary is choosing to completely misinterpret the question, or else he doesn't see anything wrong with a cabinet minister gambling with lottery funds.

As a preamble to the next question, I have here a picture of the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) and behind him is the Provincial Secretary — they are participating in a bowling game — underneath which it states that $1,000 of the Lottery Fund was used for that. Again, I have a direct question for the Provincial Secretary. Does the Provincial Secretary believe that a minister of the Crown has the right to gamble with lottery funds?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The specific answer to the member's question is no. I think if the member were there, she would realize that the member for Kamloops and I played badly enough that the application is going to be successful on all counts.

MRS. DAILLY: Following the minister's answer, my next question to him is: if you believe there's nothing wrong with a cabinet minister doing this, are you then suggesting that all MLAs in this Legislature have the right to place gambling bets to provide grants for their constituents out of the Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the member well knows that any time she has a legitimate application for lottery funds in her constituency, she can come to this minister and receive a good hearing in terms of these applications. She has had good success, as all other constituencies have had, in applying to this ministry for consideration under lotteries grants.

FAMILY LAW POLICY CHANGES

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Human Rights Code. On April 23 the Attorney-General's ministry issued policy guidelines which, by restricting and terminating legal counsel for applicants in matters of maintenance, access and custody, creates inequality before the law in that husbands are provided with counsel since they are usually the respondents in these cases, and wives are denied since they are usually the applicants. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the implementation of these guidelines?

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

MS. BROWN: Other guidelines outlined in those memos of April 23 make changes which prejudice the human rights of all children in this province over the age of 12. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the implementation of those April 23 guidelines?

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

MS. BROWN: The April 23 policy guidelines also make changes which prejudice the rights of those children who are wards of the superintendent of child welfare. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the implementation of those guidelines of April 23?

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

[ Page 7903 ]

MS. BROWN: Why is the Minister of Labour, as the minister responsible for the Human Rights Code, not taking any action on behalf of these three groups of people who are having their rights before the courts curtailed as a result of those guidelines?

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

MS. BROWN: My new question to the minister is the same old question. Why is he not taking any responsibility as the minister responsible for the human rights of these people?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

TRANSCRIPTS OF ELUC APPEAL HEARINGS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Environment as the chairman of ELUC. Can the minister confirm that verbatim transcripts are made of ELUC hearings on appeals concerning exclusions from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. ROGERS: On some of the appeals there are. I believe there are on all of them. I could check. I know there are on individual appeals. I'm not sure if there are on municipal appeals, but I'll check and get back to you. There is a transcript taken of most of the appeals.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a ministerial statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

SABOTAGE OF DUNSMUIR HYDRO SUBSTATION

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you and all other members of the House are aware that the Dunsmuir substation near Qualicum Bay on Vancouver Island was extensively damaged by sabotage early Monday morning. Officials of B.C. Hydro are still assessing the damage, but initial estimates are that the bill will be close to $5 million because of the destruction of three $1 million reactors, damage to a fourth and destruction of a large crane.

As all members of the House know, the Qualicum substation is part of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500-kv line which is slated to bring power from the mainland to Vancouver Island in October 1983. At this stage, officials of B.C. Hydro are uncertain how this act will affect the construction schedule, but there may well be delays stemming from the need to install new reactors at the site.

This act appears to be the second directed against a Hydro facility in recent weeks. An anonymous caller contacted a Vancouver radio station, claiming responsibility not only for this incident but also for damage to a reactor on Texada Island last week, earlier thought to have been caused by a lightning strike.

I'm absolutely appalled by this senseless and criminal sabotage, and I'm certain that outrage and apprehension is shared by all members of this House. The person or persons responsible have committed deliberate criminal acts for whatever motives of their own, and my concern is that this must not signal some dangerous trend — a new phase, if you like — in which protestors go outside the law. Ours is a democratic society, and the right to speak out, to march, to demonstrate and to carry placards if we don't agree with something cannot and must not be denied. But opposition, be it to a Hydro project or anything else, must be confined to lawful activities. If there is no adherence to this rule, then there is anarchy.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the damage bill for this sabotage could be close to $5 million, and I would remind the House that this is not an act against Hydro, but rather is an act against all of the people of British Columbia, who will, intact, end up with the responsibility for paying for that damage bill. Of course, there's a more serious factor involved. If this kind of destructive and dangerous activity were to increase. It is inevitable that we would soon have more than property damage to worry about, sooner or later someone, a workman or some other innocent bystander, could be maimed or killed.

My colleague the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has assured me that an intensive investigation is underway to apprehend the people responsible. I would like at this time to echo the appeal by the RCMP for public assistance in helping bring those people responsible before the courts.

I'm also concerned with the apparent ease with which dynamite and other explosive materials can be obtained by criminal elements of our society. This is an area which may well come under scrutiny by the government. If there is sloppiness in ensuring the security of explosive materials on job or construction sites, there may well have to be a tightening up of procedures to improve that security. I know that the Attorney-General is worried about that matter and intends to discuss it with our colleagues.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say again that all of us are disturbed that this kind of incident could take place in British Columbia. It is not a good indication for our society if the destruction of public property replaces legitimate protest, and I hope sincerely that the people responsible are quickly brought to justice.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, acts of terrorism cannot be condoned in this province or anywhere else, regardless of the motivation. Certainly we are extremely fortunate in this particular case that construction workers and the general public were not affected in a physical way. There's no question that we may not be so lucky in the future. I would hope that the law enforcement agencies of this province move with much more than deliberate speed in an investigation and apprehension of the perpetrators of these deeds,

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure it will interest all members to know that we have a guest in the gallery — Mrs. Lorraine Mills of Gates, Oregon. Mrs. Mills is a past mayor of the city of Gates and, of course, has been, along with many of the citizens of the state of Oregon, a regular visitor to British Columbia. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to her.

[ Page 7904 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
(continued)

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) for yielding the floor to me. I did have a couple of questions which I was unable to place before the minister prior to adjournment because he was busy in conversation with a couple of colleagues, so I'll try again. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and I won't protract the debate.

What I've done is isolate a whole number of cases which I really think should be brought to the minister's attention. There are two particular cases which I want to discuss briefly, but prior to doing that I want to tell the minister — and I think I speak for a great number of constituents of mine — that we're not happy with the administration of ICBC. I think that the administration of that corporation has deteriorated since this government has meddled in the affairs of that corporation directly in many ways. The problems — and I'm sure this is typical of most constituency offices of most MLAs in this chamber — are cases from constituents involving ICBC. The problems they're having have multiplied year after year. The rates are pressing people into unnecessary debt in some cases. I just say these things for the record, but I'm sure that every member of this House and most members of the public are aware of this situation I mention.

Mr. Chairman, I have a particularly disturbing case that's been with me now for almost a year and a half. I'll just quote from the latest correspondence, because this case — unfortunately — has been settled. One of the aspects of this particular case.... I don't think that I'll mention names, although I'm sure this gentleman wouldn't object if I did read his name and address into the record. The original complaint to me, as the MLA for this person, was centred on the fact that the corporation saw fit to have a private investigator put on a 16-year-old youth who had suffered a fractured neck. I think it's a fair dose of nonsense for the corporation to suggest that it is necessary to resort to such Gestapo tactics, in my view, in order to be assured of the extent and the consequences of the personal injuries. The corporation has a number of things they can do without putting private investigators to tailing 16-year-old people who have been seriously injured in automobile accidents. Among other things that the corporation has at its disposal is access to hospital records in the course of litigation. They have an independent medical examination by a qualified neurosurgeon of their own choosing. At least two weeks before trial, the corporation must be given full details of all medical records and information that they or the defendant's counsel would be using at any trial. All of these avenues are open to the corporation, and yet they use the fascist policy tactics of putting private investigators to trailing people around the country on taxpayers' money. I don't condone that.

I have a response from you, Mr. Minister, on that. I don't know what you said across the floor, but I see you shaking your head. I'll quote to you part of your response on this particular question. The response was most unsatisfactory. I wasn't going to go through this, but the minister seems to be upset and disagreeing with what I'm saying. This response is dated October 13, 1981, and it's a two-page letter dealing with this particular case, which was unsatisfactorily settled eventually. The minister's response to me was:

"Private investigation by its very nature remains a fundamental area of sensitivity. The corporation must under certain circumstances have no alternative but to employ this method of investigating claimants. You can rest assured that there's a strict code of ethics covering the use of private investigators and that any breach of this code of ethics can only be viewed as reprehensible."

The minister agrees with me. Well, this is one case where not only the person involved, but the solicitor involved, the parents involved in the case.... If they're putting a private investigator on in this particular instance, it's happening elsewhere. The minister may want to respond to that. I suspect the answer I'll get is the same response I received in writing late last year.

It's not that I want to get involved in these cases as such, Mr. Chairman, but they are indicative of the kinds of things that are happening. All of us could spend hours going through our files on ICBC cases.

HON. MR. CHABOT: But not you.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Hurry up! I wish you would hurry up, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and do something about the housing problem, the land problem, the ALR problem, and the high interest rates out there, instead of sitting in this Legislature making rude remarks across the floor, and spoiling a very good speech.

I just want to tell you about a case that has been in the works and was very recently settled. This letter, notifying me that the case was finally resolved, was dated April 1, 1982. The case goes back about two years. The problem here was the harassment placed on this individual, who is still not working today because of this accident. He was forced to make an out-of-court settlement with ICBC at a very minimum rate. He was unable to work and is still using a cane to walk around. He is having a difficult time of it financially. In fact, ICBC cut off his indemnity, and he had no recourse. He was cut off welfare and because of the pressure of creditors, he was forced to accept a very inferior settlement from ICBC. He had no choice; he was financially strapped and ICBC knew this would happen with this particular person. They subjected him to the most painful investigations and scrutiny — I would call it harassment — for two years. This was an ordinary person living in the community. I want it on the record that those tactics cannot be condoned. We would not condone them if we were the government of this province, and I don't think that government over there should condone these tactics either.

I've got a whole lot more here, but I know time is of the essence and other speakers want the floor. I hope the minister will reply and not defend the tactics — despicable tactics in some cases, in my view — of the corporation.

[ Page 7905 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to speak briefly on the minister's office estimates, in particular since every time I've come to the House to hear the debates about Agriculture, all I've really heard from the critic for Agriculture and all the others on the NDP side is talk about ICBC. As an MLA and a member representing the people of Surrey, certainly I have problems presented to me from time to time related to ICBC. I do intend to take every opportunity to raise those particular problems with the minister, as his office has a direct responsibility in this.

But I think Agriculture is worthy of some mention not only by the members on this side but also by members of the opposition. Unfortunately, we have heard little, if any, mention about agriculture. I consider agriculture to be a priority item and certainly one deserving a lot of discussion and debate in the House and we've not heard the debate about agriculture. Agriculture is sufficiently important to the province that I would have expected the critic for the NDP to have raised the various things that affect agriculture throughout the various parts of beautiful British Columbia.

I have a great deal of involvement with agriculture and have had all of my life. As a youngster I came out of school and became involved in the growing of flower bulbs. Following that I was very involved in the nursery business. I have carried on in the horticultural business and I know what people in the horticultural trade are up against and involved with. It has been a good business and continues to be a good business. British Columbia offers tremendous opportunity in producing shrubs, flowers, bulbs and perennial plants not only for the local market but for exports to other parts of Canada and even to the U.S.A. We do have an excellent climate on Vancouver Island, in the lower mainland and in the Okanagan Valley to be competitive in the production of tree shrubs to export to other areas of North America and eventually to other parts of the world.

I too have a considerable involvement in growing vegetables. Again, there appears to be the attitude that somehow we in British Columbia cannot compete in growing vegetables. I beg to differ with that and I intend to prove it. I know that most members would be aware that I have been instrumental in bringing technology from Holland to produce vegetables under glass. In Holland this has been done for many years. Just below Rotterdam they have 15,000 acres under glass, growing lettuce and other vegetable crops and exporting them to all parts of western Europe. That little country has a tremendous trade in agriculture, probably its largest single export. In British Columbia we have the opportunities to build. There is not only a chance for us to be self-sufficient in producing vegetables but perhaps to be exporting to our neighbours in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and elsewhere. We do have a lot to talk about. Agriculture is and will continue to be a great industry in B.C. and it could be an even greater industry. The opportunities are here.

When you see what will be produced just outside of Langley in a seven-acre greenhouse complex with the help of computers, you certainly see an example of what can be done, and how self-sufficient we can become. Mr. Minister, I feel that British Columbians, with the various promotional programs that you through your ministry have encouraged, will want to buy B.C. home-grown produce wherever possible. We can produce lettuce in competition with California; we can produce it and sell it for less. We can produce beans, radishes, zucchini, tomatoes, cucumbers and more in competition with California, with the other American states and with Mexico, which are presently exporting to British Columbia and are also probably supplying the bulk of the market in the whole of western Canada.

Mr. Minister, I'm sorry that more mention hasn't been made of this. I know there appears to be a great deal of time spent by the opposition on ICBC. I can appreciate how the NDP critic and other members would possibly see this as politically the better item to give priority to when discussing your office estimates. Putting aside the problems we may encounter in our constituencies, and putting aside the temptation to try to take from Hansard where we've mentioned various individual ICBC problems, thereby making a little bit of politics, I think it's more important that members on both sides of the House give priority first and foremost to the number one thing in your ministry, the number one potential for British Columbia: the development of greater opportunities in agriculture. We have it. It's here. I know that much can be done.

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

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

This is not a lecture to the members of the opposition, but as I return to this House time and time again to listen to the debate on the estimates. I keep hearing lCBC, ICBC, ICBC. I have yet to hear one constructive suggestion for the ministry with respect to assisting agriculture in British Columbia.

I want to now make one particular suggestion to you, Mr. Minister, which I think will be of enormous value to those involved in agriculture in British Columbia. To grow various crops in this day and age — be they horticultural or vegetable, trees or whatever, raising cattle or dairy farming — requires a great deal of expertise, knowledge and information which perhaps wasn't considered as important a number of years ago. We have a great deal of competition from places like California, where not only their operation is mechanized, but they have also brought in a great many skills and useful information through the various agencies that gather it and make it available to individual farmers. It is very difficult for an individual greenhouse operator or farmer to bring in all the necessary testing materials and equipment to ensure that his soil has the structure and contains the various elements necessary to produce the greatest crop per acre. It is difficult for an individual to have all that equipment and expertise available. I commend you for the work done through the soil analysis branch, for example.

My plea now, Mr. Minister, is that every effort be made by your ministry to ensure that this particular branch will receive every assistance and encouragement to become as involved as possible in making contact with individual farmers, to offer its services, to demonstrate how it is in the farmers' best interest to ensure that the greatest return per acre is produced. I think that is possibly one of the most important things ), on can do for agriculture in British Columbia.

In the past, when I've heard agriculture discussed in the House and elsewhere, and the various suggestions that were made to you by members of the opposition, there has been a tendency, particularly by the members from the socialist opposition, to say that we must have more grant programs, that farmers — horticulturists, agriculturists or whatever — should receive some moneys from government, and that government must, through financial aid, become more and

[ Page 7906 ]

more directly involved in the marketplace and in the production of the various crops in British Columbia. I totally disagree with that. I appreciate full well that there are those people in agriculture who will do a better job than others. I can appreciate that during tough times, such as we're now experiencing, some people will definitely go under. I can only relate it to my own experiences and compare it to what's happening today in agriculture, as it is in other industries. When I started out as a boy of 17 or 18 in agriculture, we worked six — and if necessary, seven — days a week, 18 hours a day. We plugged, worked and stayed until the last customer was gone, so to speak. That was in the early fifties.

In the early seventies and throughout the seventies, it changed considerably. You didn't necessarily have to put in all of that effort. The economy was such that practically anyone starting out and just putting forth a little energy could somehow succeed, especially if one way or another he could obtain some outside support from private, individual or possibly government sources. Those people now, when the going gets tough, find it very difficult to continue. I suppose that isn't only in agriculture. I'm sure there are many people who are in the sales business — be it the selling of furniture, cars or other products — who could not have started in the fifties, but started in the early seventies, and now suddenly find that they can't compete in that tough market because they weren't conditioned for it.

To the minister, as one who certainly is — and his family is — very much involved in agriculture as well, I say that we're not looking for any sorts of grants. I would much prefer it if there weren't any grants available — no taxpayers' dollars available — to individual farmers. If we could just put forth our very best efforts and be rewarded for trying just a little bit harder.... The farmer especially finds it most rewarding if that little extra effort produces just a little bit more. If, when the sun shines, you get in the hay and don't wait until after it starts to rain, you'll probably survive where many others wouldn't. I don't particularly in any way, shape or form seek any government assistance by way of dollars in our industry, but instead want every assist available in providing that expertise that is available in the ministry and that individual farmers could not in any way gain for themselves. If you have the equipment, the necessary testing machinery and the people who have been property educated to go out, take the various soil tests and come back to the farmer and say, "Look, you're producing X lbs. per acre now, but by providing these nutrients and elements and doing this with the soils, you can increase it by 50 percent or whatever," that's the sort of help I think is important.

Mr. Minister, I'm very pleased that I had the opportunity of saying how important I think the agricultural industry is to British Columbia. I didn't want these estimates to go by and have you sit here day after day, as you have, with your very capable deputies and listen to matters about ICBC. I see the deputy and other people who give you the necessary backup, if questions come from the opposition with respect to agricultural matters, sitting through hours and hours of debate about ICBC. Somehow the most important industry in British Columbia, agriculture, gets overlooked by the critic and all the other members on the opposite side. It is an important industry for British Columbia. It can grow. It offers tremendous potential. We in B.C. can be self-sufficient in agricultural products. Not only that, we can provide for our neighbouring provinces. We don't have to be, nor should we be, dependent on California for all our foods, for all our agricultural crops. We can do it in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, again I repeat — I know I've said it until perhaps it's been repeated too many times — that we don't, as the opposition tends to suggest time and time again if they do talk on agriculture, need more grants. We don't need more government moneys. As a matter of fact — I know there may be some disagreement with this as well — I would hope one day perhaps we in Canada might even be able to market our products a little more freely, because that too is important to me. I feel if individuals are given the opportunity to produce to the best of their ability and to sell in the marketplace, if they can be given a chance to stand up and face the challenge, we can outdo anybody anywhere in the world.

MR. PASSARELL: Briefly, on the previous member and his speech, it was the Agriculture estimates that came up in debate in this Legislature last Tuesday. On Friday we discussed the agricultural land reserve and some of the problems that this government has brought to farmers in this province. I found it very ironic that the previous speaker, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), did not state his opposition to this government's position of taking agricultural land out of the ALR. He talked about developing farmland in this province. He should start with his own people and the minister sitting next to him, if he wants to discuss farmland and building a self-sufficient province to grow vegetables in this province. Start with your own minister, Mr. Member for Surrey.

But on to some ICBC stuff, Mr. Chairman, since we'll be discussing agriculture later this afternoon. I hope the first member for Surrey sticks around and takes in the discussion. But on to some constituency problems, Mr. Chairman. The first one is regarding Kitsault. There is approximately half a mile of roads in Kitsault — it's an isolated community — and I was wondering if some type of program could be developed for people in Kitsault who drive half a mile between the plant and their homes providing for a special tag that could be up on their licence and for a reduction in their ICBC rates, because they're presently paying the same amounts as individuals who live in Prince Rupert or in Terrace.

Secondly, there is an ongoing problem that the minister and myself have discussed over the years: getting more visits by claim adjusters into the north. Last year when we discussed this the minister stated his support of this. I wonder what the minister could report back to the Legislature regarding getting more claim adjusters to come up into the north to see problems. Right now when there is an accident it's too easy to call down to Terrace and say there has been an accident and have the RCMP state that the car is a total write-off. It would be better to have more adjusters come into the far north, not on a weekly basis but maybe on a monthly basis. It appears too often, Mr. Chairman, that claim adjusters come into the north on an annual, once-only trip into the riding.

Another constituency problem that I wondered if the minister could help out with is the statistics for accidents of 16- to 19-year-olds in the Atlin constituency. I don't know if it's broken down into constituencies, but I would appreciate it if the minister could get this information regarding accidents from 16- to 19-year-olds in the Atlin constituency.

The fourth issue is logging roads and accidents. One of the problems that many residents are facing, particularly in the Nass Valley, is that it is not a highway; it's a CanCel-B.C. Timber road. There have been problems regarding

[ Page 7907 ]

logging road accidents and ICBC. I hope the minister could look into this, because there seems to be some confusion concerning the Nass Road.

The last issue I'd like to discuss with the minister is that three or four weeks ago I gave him a letter full of robust language from a constituent who was having problems — I think a number of members in the House had seen this letter — and I still haven't had any reply back from the minister about what solutions the minister was able to offer him regarding the fee that he was complaining about. These are five local constituency issues, and I would certainly hope the minister could give answers to those questions.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions and point out what I see are some anomalies in the law as it presently stands, and perhaps he might review some of these anomalies and explain whether there is any progress being made internally in ICBC to try to resolve them. One of the most devastating anomalies to those of us who come into contact with ICBC is the strange rules concerning limitations of coverage. Now I'm not dealing with the law on compulsory coverage — I can deal with that separately. The concern I have is the strange anomaly that if you are a driver who is insured and are convicted, say, of reckless driving, that can result in a limitation on the damage settlement of your victim. For example, if you're driving recklessly and you have a million dollars' worth of coverage and you cause a million dollars' worth of damage, ICBC has the right, if you are convicted of that particular offence, to limit the coverage they give to the claimant. So what claimants in this province have to do in disastrous cases is sit around and hope that the driver who's been charged receives an acquittal rather than being convicted, so that their claim against ICBC can receive adequate compensation.

Just to reinforce it, I give you the example of a whole family that would be wiped out by a reckless, dangerous or drunk driver. Under the coverage limit there is a discretionary clause which ICBC can enforce against the claimants. They only have to pay up to the minimum coverage required by law; they do not have to go into the coverage beyond it. I am suggesting to the minister that this provision really should be reviewed. I know ICBC has not done this in every case. There are situations where ICBC has refused to exercise its discretion — on compassionate grounds, I suppose — and has paid more than the limit in the policy. I give them full marks for doing that. I think it indicates some compassion on the part of the board in reviewing the claims. The problem, however, is that people need to know a little more than that compassion is going to be exercised. I think they are entitled to be adequately compensated by law rather than relying upon a discretion. The bottom line is that the corporation can turn the claim down as a result of the policy violation of the driver who causes the problem and causes the accident. I would ask the minister to look at that.

The second question....

Interjection.

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

My second question concerns the common insurance clause that prevails between B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan. A B.C. resident, for example, who is hit by a Manitoba driver, which driver has been out of his home province for more than 60 days, is not entitled to coverage above the $100,000 limit even if his policy has higher limits than that. That again is something that should be looked at.

Of course, the way to solve all these anomalies and problems in the law is to bring forward a new piece of legislation that provides a $1 million minimum coverage for all drivers in the province of British Columbia. This is long overdue. I am surprised we haven't seen any legislation on this floor. We are operating in the horse-and-buggy era in terms of limits on the policies. If you looked at the budget of ICBC and the profit-loss statement, you would find that by increasing the limits on ICBC coverage you would not place the corporation at a significant disadvantage. The majority of claims are well under the present limits. It is the few catastrophic cases that are concerning some of us, where the coverage is lacking when it is so desperately needed — for example, in the case of a paraplegic or someone who received significant brain damage. Those cases, while they may be few, are horrendous for the individuals concerned. I submit that those are the cases which need to be reviewed very carefully by the minister.

The other aspect I want the minister to look at is the question of ICBC's public role. As a public monopoly corporation, its responsibility is to promote traffic safety and to create a reduction in our horrendous accident rate in the province of British Columbia. We have one of the worst accident rates in North America. ICBC's position — up to now, anyway — seems to be that it's a public relations exercise; persuade people to drive safely by advertising widely that safe driving is good and reckless driving is bad. That is just not good enough. This kind of public relations approach to safety is obviously not having any impact. At the present time, ICBC has a budget of $2 million for this purpose. In B.C. we had 143,310 accidents in 1980; five years ago we had 85,601. We have had a 67 percent increase in five years. The number of insured vehicles went up 22 percent in that period.

Driving is becoming more hazardous in British Columbia and a good many people are now asking what contribution ICBC is making toward promoting a reduction in the awesome British Columbia statistics. One of the things they did was to phase out the premium reduction for the safe driving program. I think that should be reviewed. In the course of doing that, it destroyed the small business people who were trying to survive in that field. I can't believe that driver education program did not have a positive impact in terms of the accident statistics.

Even more importantly, perhaps, ICBC has within its corporation more information about accidents in this province than any other organization, including police, municipalities, prosecutors or anyone else. ICBC has the master computer system. They know which corners are dangerous statistically. They can take traffic counts to determine how many people go through a certain intersection and how many accidents they're seeing at that intersection. Mr. Chairman, my complaint is that there is still insufficient liaison between the various departments of government — highways, municipalities and the police — and ICBC to integrate this information. When it comes to traffic design, lighting and all of the things which contribute to traffic safety. nothing is happening. and we have this massive corporation, with all this information. but which is not, it seems to me, using it successfully to promote traffic safety. Surely one of the reasons that the overwhelming majority of people in this

[ Page 7908 ]

province supported and still support the principle of public auto insurance is that they see it as a device to promote safety on the highway — that we could integrate in a single corporation the question of safety on the highways. We haven't done that. It seems to me that one of the things that the public is looking at is why ICBC hasn't been more active and more visible, and hasn't done more in terms of accident prevention.

There are things, obviously, that ICBC can't do about the driving age, all of the Motor Vehicle Act amendments, and so on. I'm not sure how aggressive they've been in promoting changes in the traffic laws of the province. I think they could be more aggressive there as well, but it does seem that the role that ICBC should have been playing in accident reduction is simply not being played. What I'm suggesting to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that that whole question of prevention should be reviewed by ICBC. They should beef up their budget; $2 million is not enough. They're doing some public education in the schools and they're doing some advertising, but that isn't enough. We have to go to the actual question of redesigning lighting of highways. Yes, some advertising is desirable and good, but the fact that it's a public relations exercise is just not good enough.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

The other question which has come up is whether, in fact, the corporation's role in attempting to negotiate settlements, particularly on the personal injury side, is as effective as it could be. If you examine the annual report of ICBC, you find that the largest increase in cost continues to be on the tin side, on the auto damage side. Those costs have been escalating at a much greater rate than have those on the personal injury side. Thirty-five percent of the cost is now going to compensate those people who've been injured as a result of the automobile on the highway, and 65 percent is now going to the question of property damage.

There's a very real conflict that develops within ICBC when you have an adjuster who takes statements and brings in all the information about an accident, and then is faced with a claim from this particular individual. That information doesn't go back to the individual; it goes to ICBC, and the person then claiming is at a bit of a disadvantage because any of that information can be and has been used against people when they promote the claim. There has to be another way of doing this. It seems to me that this conflict of interest within the corporation is just not justice, and people understand what fairness and justice is. It may be that you'll have to use independent adjusters to get around it. Perhaps another way would be to release to the other side any information that has been obtained so that they have an opportunity to examine what has been said and done, and so that they're not surprised if they have to come into a conflict.

The other question is about what I think is a stupid policy. ICBC does not instruct its adjusters to offer prejudgment interest in regard to settlements, and that can be a very major factor nowadays. I think that your prejudgment interest is running at 12 percent to 13 percent, and if you have a protracted negotiation, you will find that by not giving the adjuster the authority to add the prejudgment interest into the settlement, it's much more difficult to arrive at a settlement rather than go through a costly court procedure. It seems to me that that rule.... Those of us who have dealt with this are just amazed ICBC and their representatives are not more forthcoming about that matter — that since you're going to recover prejudgment interest at the trial anyway, you might as well throw it into the package and try to get some resolution of the claim.

At the moment our courts are clogged with cases that should be settled. One reason there are fewer settlements is, I think, that there is an unrealistic view of the appropriate award by both sides from time to time. This is not just the fault of ICBC. I think there are unrealistic views from claims lawyers as well about the value of any particular claim. But it's getting worse. We're looking at many more cases going to trial than we ever had before. Someone has suggested almost 80 percent, but that sounds like a high figure to me.

We are faced with this problem of clogging the court system, so there is now pressure to look to another system. I notice ICBC representatives have started to look on a system like the Workers' Compensation Board scheme with some favour. I see the minister smiling. He's read the same reports that I have on this. This would solve a lot of bureaucratic problems. You wouldn't have to wrestle with this idea of what is fair and just; you'd have a schedule of compensation. I find that unattractive, not merely because I happen to be a lawyer and I'd be put out of business. They've been trying to put lawyers out of business since Nero's time, but they're always around. They're like priests: you can't get rid of them. I'm satisfied that lawyers will always find a way to make a living. That's really not been a major problem. It's just like good farmers. They'd make a living too. Good lawyers will make a living.

On the question of fairness in compensation, if the minister is looking at a scheme of compensation which would give a schedule to those injured on the roadway, how do you compare the loss of an arm for a right-handed mechanic at age 22 with the loss of an arm for an old-age pensioner on a schedule basis? Both injuries are the same but have a very unequal impact to the individual. One of the difficulties we've always had in trying to assess fairness in claims is that you've got to take the individual into consideration. I will always oppose a scheme that becomes so depersonalized that the individual in our society is lost. I hope I have support throughout the House on that principle, because that's the principle of justice and fairness.

It's easier to do it the other way. It may seem on the surface that you've gotten rid of a lot of problems by doing it the other way, but you haven't. You've compounded injustice, and it will result in the kinds of awards that are grossly unfair or in some cases too much. It is a scheme that avoids the difficult question of compensating the individual in his real loss. That's what we're all about. It's a difficult process; it's not an easy process. It's a costly process.

The question of legal fees — lawyers charging contingency fees — comes up from time to time. I don't know a scheme that the public prefers other than that one. It's one that has had much wider acceptance than a lawyer saying: "You'll get the bill at the end, after I figure out how many hours I've spent." That may come as a much greater shock than knowing in advance the approximate amount it's going to be, depending on the result.

I agree that there are temptations on lawyers to settle early and low. Remember that there has been a good deal of complaint from ICBC that lawyers are dragging this thing out and that lawyers are taking everything to court. I can tell you

[ Page 7909 ]

from some experience that if you're on a contingency contract, the best way is to settle early, take your money and get on to the next file. In reality, that is not what is happening. In reality, I think the profession is trying to do its job as it always has — simply representing its client to the best of their ability.

That doesn't mean that lawyers' bills should not be reviewed or taxed. I think some of them are too high. I find some of the percentage figures appalling, too high and unrealistic in terms of the work that's being done, but nevertheless, as a principle, it has broadened the availability of legal services to people in the community. They feel more at ease in going to a lawyer when they have some idea what it's going to cost. So there's a good deal of merit in continuing that system. If you want to move to a compensation scheme, I would vigorously oppose any scheme that used a formula for the purpose of compensation.

I want to make a couple more brief points to the minister. One concern is that we still invest only 40 percent of the reserves in the province of British Columbia and 60 percent outside as an ICBC policy. I know the argument is that you should get the best return on your money, and that if you decide as a policy to keep all your money in British Columbia, you're going to have to pay more in premiums or you're not going to have as adequate a return. I think we should be willing to pay the price of keeping that capital in British Columbia. I think one of the purposes of forming the public Insurance Corporation was to try to develop capital pools here for development. I'm sorry to see so much of that investment going outside of the province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to thank the member for Coquitlam-Moody for asking what I consider to be a number of interesting and important questions and raising a number of points, not in a political way but because he wishes to question the operation of the corporation and has given some suggestions where he sees it can be done a little better or a little differently. I would like to respond to a number of members who have raised questions. I would like to start with the last member, because I was interested in what he had to say.

Your last item was ICBC. We only invest 40 percent of our investments in British Columbia. I can tell you that our policy is to invest first in British Columbia. You can recognize that in a number of instances those investments are not available. We deal in large dollars. For example, at the end of December 1981 we had $700 million in investments. There are large blocks of money that come in as of February 28 because the majority of renewals take place at that time. We look for investments and attempt to place in British Columbia first, Canada second, and then elsewhere if necessary. We do have to recognize return on investment, because any reduction in return on investment will be reflected in premium dollars paid by the motoring public.

On December 31, 1981, the revenue from investment received by the corporation was $102,554,000. If you dropped that 1 or 2 percent you would find that in order to make premiums and revenues equal the claims expense, we would have to raise premiums. It is one of those issues where you have to apply good logic, attempt to deal with your local investments and attempt to serve British Columbia, because this is a B.C. corporation. At the same time you must recognize that we have to serve the driver as well.

You talked about contingency fees. My observation is that there is a role for the Law Society to play here in monitoring its own members. I don't think that most lawyers abuse that system of contingency fees, but there are occasions. Like your association, in my association of accountants if we abuse our code of ethics we certainly are taken to task for it.

Just to give you one instance, I have one letter in the files here that deals with the recent newspaper articles about how management were concerned about the extent to which the legal profession is involved with ICBC claims settlement and the high cost of this involvement. This person's wife just completed a settlement with the Insurance Corporation for an accident which occurred almost three years ago. "This settlement required a court judgment, and the process which led to the award was such as to convince me that your management 's concerns are well founded. First there were the financial aspects of the process. Of the total award made to my wife for damages and costs, 41 percent were consumed by legal fees and associated costs." This individual was writing as a result of those newspaper articles.

With regard to no-fault insurance, which is the workers' compensation approach, I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody that it is too easy. By being too easy and too impersonal you are going to see such situations as you mentioned: a loss of an arm to a 22-year-old as opposed to a loss of an arm to a 65-year-old driver and the same settlement being made. I don't think it would work. As you know, there has been a task force, made up of a number of officials from the corporation, the insurance industry and the legal profession, looking at these things.

One area they've addressed is not so much no-fault insurance — similar to a workers' compensation program — but the structured settlement program which would say that a settlement would be achieved that would not be paid out in one lump sum but would be structured over the lifetime of the individual. That would catch the situation of a 22-year-old who lost his arm as opposed to getting one lump sum and then the legal fee taking a certain percentage of it. But it doesn't just stop there — and I'm not finding fault with the lawyers on that score. The one lump-sum payment to an individual who has suffered a loss, who is emotionally upset, could result in his having all those dollars at a time when he may not really be able to emotionally deal with that issue. As a result, he is not prudent as to how it's spent or invested, and ends up after a short period of time, having, of course, also suffered the results of the injury, with the funds provided for his future well-being spent or poorly invested. That's the concept behind the structured settlement, and I have some feeling for that, not just because of possible high lawyers' fees but also because of possibly paying a large amount of money — a half-million-dollar settlement to an individual at a time when he may not be able to deal with managing that money. If we structured it over a period of time he would have, you might call it, disability pension, which would provide him with income over a period of time to maintain the standard of living he had before the accident.

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

The driver-training program. I guess we could argue one way or the other. Statistically, when you analyze those people who had driver-training instruction — we gave $50 grants to those people who took it — relate those people who had that instruction to those who didn't. and relate it to the number of

[ Page 7910 ]

accidents that have occurred, it is proven that the investment did not result in a benefit. As a result, we took those dollars and directed them elsewhere, still hoping to accomplish driver education.

The member mentioned that ICBC has more information on accidents than any other place. He talks about identifying street corners where a lot of accidents occur, etc. Yes, I guess we could adapt the computer system to providing that information. I would just say that there would be a cost involved, and the cost, of course, would be paid for by the motoring public in the form of premiums.

I think there has been good liaison between ICBC, the motor vehicle branch, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and also the Attorney-General's department. We put together a task force some time ago which resulted in the bill that's before the House at the present time. That was done as a result of good liaison between those two ministries and the corporation, and I'm very pleased to see that the minister has brought the bill before the House — a bill which I know I can't really comment on in estimates. But it is a bill that I think would solve some of the problems that exist today with regard to the motoring public.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned the discretionary clause. You and I know that when a person has, maybe, a half-million-dollar coverage, but has breached his contract.... In effect, when he breaches his contract, he really falls into the same level of coverage as an uninsured motorist which is the maximum of $100,000. You're quite right. I would say that in most if not all cases ICBC honours the claim and the coverage, but it has the right to state that the contract has been breached. As a result, the limitation is $100,000, which really means that the motorist who is in breach of his contract — and, of course, the primary breach is by the driver who was driving while impaired — can be sued by the individual involved in the accident. In many cases that doesn't accomplish anything, because the individual who was driving while impaired may not have the assets to meet a lawsuit. ICBC usually does live up to the limits of the contract, but it does have the right, and it does maintain the discretion, to state that the driver was in breach of his contract and therefore the limit of $100,000 applies.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody talked about the $1 million minimum, and I just want to say right now for the benefit of the members here that we have a $100,000 minimum by law. You might be interested in knowing that 88 percent of the driving public is covered to an amount of $200,000 liability. In other words, they just don't stay with the minimum; they increase it to $200,000. Eighty percent of the driving public have $500,000, and 52 percent of the driving public has $1 million or more liability insurance. The amount of the premium isn't that great for them to do it, and that's an area in which I think we could probably go to the individuals and say, "Look, is $1 a month too much to pay for that protection?" — if your figure of $12 is right. If you don't do it that way, then you are saying to all drivers: "You're going to pay a little more if we raise the minimum to $1 million."

Moving back to some other members, the member for Atlin mentioned Kitsault and insurance at lower cost because they only drive half a mile back and forth to the mine site. We have this problem. We can look at individual situations, but you're recognizing that ICBC writes contracts covering 1.8 million vehicles in British Columbia. Every time you look at that exception to the rule, you cause another administrative problem. However, your comments are well taken, and when we're finished with my estimates I can assure you that ICBC officials will be looking at some of the questions that have been raised to see whether we can respond.

Adjusters requested to visit the north more often. There is a very regular schedule of attempting to get into those more remote areas to deal with those issues from time to time, and if they're not being properly served, I'd be quite happy to hear any individual complaints you have and try to improve the service.

Mr. Member, I don't have the statistics on drivers aged 16 to 19 involved in accidents in Atlin, but I can give you drivers 16 to 18 who are involved in accidents in British Columbia. The latest statistics are for 1980 and for the benefit of the House I'll read them out. A total of 4.3 percent of the motoring public are between the ages of 16 and 18. Of that, the number of third-party claims in that particular year total led 12 percent of the total claims involved in that bracket. I don't have further detailed statistics, but we might be able to find those. The computer is a wonderful thing, and we'll see if we can identify the numbers in the Atlin area.

With regard to that famous letter, yes, we attempted to communicate with the man. We sent a telegram, but we didn't get a response. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) tracked him down, and he had moved to another place. Since that time we have communicated with him again, and it is a refund, I believe, that's in the works at this time. It was a hard task, I want you to note, to track this man down. I agree with you that his language was colourful, to say the least.

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

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

I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). It's nice to know that a man involved in agriculture and horticulture looks to the Ministry of Agriculture for assistance from time to time and recognizes the value of the service and the work we do. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we will attempt to update our services in the field as we can. I think our strength lies in providing services to that man outstanding in his field, so to speak — the farmer. The farmer would agree and I agree that it's not grants or government assistance that the farmer wants. He wants the ability to grow and produce a product, to be able to market it and to get a fair return on his investment, no different than any other businessman. Almost every agricultural meeting I go to, the farmers say: "Mr. Minister, we like your assistance program, your farm income assurance and your interest rebate. We like all those programs and they help us a great deal, but we'd much rather get it from the marketplace." They will admit that themselves.

What we basically have in this province and in this country — although some may not agree — is a cheap-food policy. In Canada, for example, we pay out about 17 percent to 18 percent of our disposable income — not our gross income but our disposable income — for food. If you look at places like England and Europe, you're looking at 25 percent plus for the purchase of the same food in relation to disposable income. In places like Japan you're looking at 30 percent plus for food. If we could have that kind of return out of the marketplace, the farmers wouldn't have to look to those assistance programs.

[ Page 7911 ]

One other important statistic is that the farmer gets about 30 percent of what the consumer spends for that food in the supermarket. The consumer wants the controlled-atmosphere shopping mall, the colourful packaging, advertising, promotion, etc. He wants that food moved from the farm gate to a location where it is easy for him to pick it up; and there is a cost involved. As a result, when you see that a head of lettuce costs $1.29 in the middle of January, don't figure the B.C. farmer is getting that. First of all, it comes from California. Secondly, in the summer months the supermarket may have it on for 39 cents or 49 cents a head, but only about one-third of that amount gets back to the farm gate. We sometimes think the farmer is not doing too badly. I can tell you that the amount he gets is not the price you pay in the store. He only gets a portion of it.

Speaking of the ability to market, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), yes, there is that ability. In certain areas the farm community has marketing boards, just as other organizations have agencies set up in order to get a price in the marketplace. However, as I say, that price is sometimes not as much as we think it is when we buy things in the store.

The member for Dewdney talked about improving claim centres. We are addressing that question to see if we can improve the service to the motoring public and improve the image of the corporation in providing service to the public.

The member for Comox mentioned the Ivy claim. My staff are listening to this conversation and are attempting to get information back as quickly as possible. I am told that this particular case has been in front of the courts twice already, and both times the court has upheld that the maximum amount available under the uninsured motorist fund is $75,000. I believe the accident took place in 1978; that figure would now be $100,000. This amount has been offered on numerous occasions by the corporation to the person involved; but it has been refused.

I understand the matter is being appealed once again. ICBC has lived up to the legislation under which it operates. However, there is a section in the ICBC manual dealing with no-fault insurance, disability benefits and the number of weeks covered. It is on page 29. I am not sure about the common-law issue, which is intriguing. I think you said they were together 10 years. The manual reads: "The head of the household in this case is defined as the spouse contributing the larger income to the household." I think you mentioned the Family Relations Act.

MS. SANFORD: The Family Compensation Act.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. The way things are today, a common-law arrangement over a period of time does recognize contributions by both parties. There might be an area where this individual who had a common-law arrangement could be considered a spouse; and maybe there would be further benefits. We will certainly look into that as well.

I think I've covered them all to this point. If I’ve missed anything I'm sure the members will raise the questions again.

MR. HALL: We don't want to delay the House committee much longer in this particular section of the debate on ICBC, but only want to point out that the minister has not answered questions that he started to promise to answer during debate on a bill almost a week ago. In order to correct an impression which may have been left inadvertently by my colleague for Surrey that we spend all our time talking about ICBC, I want to read into the record and tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we started talking about Agriculture last Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: For how long?

MR. HALL: For as long as this House decided to talk about Agriculture, for as long as the government could keep its act together, an hour at a time, and could decide what to bring into this House at any one time. We've had agriculture in and out and in and out. We started on ICBC after 4 yesterday afternoon, so don't come in here and try to say we've done nothing except talk about ICBC, because that is not true.

MR. KEMPF: Do away, with it. Then we won't have to talk about it.

MR. HALL: That may be your opinion, Mr. Member. The member for Omineca wants to do away with it. That is not what his colleague. the member for Penticton (Hon. Mr. Bennett) wants to do with it.

It's not correct to say that we're not spending time on agriculture. We are going to spend a lot more time on agriculture after I finish talking about ICBC, so you can put that bag of votes back on the front bench, Mr. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

The point we've been trying to make in this debate is that the reason members bring forth cases to you is not to repeat horror stories. If I've said that once I may have said it two or three times, and I don't want you to call me to order for repetitious conduct. The reason we bring cases to you is to illustrate administrative faults and the public's concern and awareness of what's going on with the corporation — not to recount horror stories. as the minister would like to say. If the minister would listen to this side, as he said he would do, and phase in the changes in premiums the corporation charges for automobile insurance based on territory and age.... If he had phased in some of those changes he would not have been caught, metaphorically speaking, with his trousers down and had to deal with the $6 million subsidy last year and again this year. He could have processed those changes in the way other changes are being gradually processed in. We might have seen the corporation. for instance, spread that old-age persons discount of, let's say, $12 million over possibly three or four years instead of having to bite the whole bullet like that. You said you'd take that under consideration, but you weren't even listening.

I want to ask him now for the last time — we're not going to hold up the vote, as we've certainly got records here and we can ask for him to communicate with us perhaps in a more direct way — if he would now tell us about the numbers in the uninsured fund that we dealt with the other day, and if he'd tell us about the breakdown of the safety program at ICBC. My colleague talked about that safety program and talked about the corporation having the statistics at their disposal. The fact of the matter is that the corporation has all sorts of statistics at its disposal and I'd like to know how that $2 million expenditure on a safety program breaks down to the dollar.

[ Page 7912 ]

He's not replied to us as to whether the corporation does use Decima Research at $20,000 or $40,000 a pop per quarter. He has not told us the cost of the Delphi survey. He has not given us the figures on the separation of senior personnel.

I was browsing through my records overnight and I found a nice column in the Summerland Bugle or the Okanagan Falls Gazette with a picture of this bearded gentleman looking at me out of this column, asking the members and the readers in that region to write to him with their opinions about driving and drinking age. It is not a bad technique to fill in a weekly column: ask someone else to do your work. I'd like the minister to tell us what the results of that kind of survey in his own community were. I would like to seriously share a thought with the minister. I don't believe we should close the gap between the driving and drinking age. If you make the driving and drinking age the same, I think you make the police work harder. I would like the gap to continue with at least two years between driving and drinking. I don't believe you should automatically put up the driving age to the drinking age. I think there should be quite a gap between the two. I would like to know what the minister's thoughts are on that, especially since he has gone to the trouble of getting constituency input from the Okanagan Falls and Osoyoos area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you talk to your own constituents?

MR. HALL: Of course I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they say?

MR. HALL: When I'm the minister I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You may wait a long time.

MR. HALL: I'll bet you I don't wait as long as you do.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest task that the minister has is not to get this corporation back on track, but to convince his own colleagues of the worth of his work. I want to pledge my assistance and the assistance of the New Democratic Party opposition to that minister in the work he has to do with his own back bench and a couple of his cabinet colleagues to get support for this corporation that really should be doing much better, could be doing much better and, Mr. Minister, must be doing much better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman.... [Applause.] I'm concerned when I get support from the opposition benches. That bothers me. It weakens my case with my colleagues, I think.

I'm sorry to say that I still haven't got the answer to the question with regard to the uninsured motorists, but I sent another message upstairs to find out why it hasn't been sent over.

The public survey regarding the driving age that, I guess, I did in the newspapers in my riding.... Yes, we've had a number of responses, and my staff member involved with ICBC is compiling the statistical information to tell me and my riding just what people think about whether or not the driving age should be 16 or 18 and whether or not the drinking age should be 19 or 21. I'm sure we're all aware that there has been a considerable amount of news coverage on the driving age of young people and, of course, on the drinking age.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's almost enough to make me sit down, Mr. Member, but your colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), asked some questions, and he wants answers.

Specific terms of reference with regard to the Delphi survey were to establish the perception of the public on the entire range of the services that ICBC offers. The cost was approximately $65,000 for that survey, which was provincewide.

You asked a question about how many senior members of staff had been dismissed and awarded, following court action, amounts of money and compensation for lack of notice. The answer is that there have been only two actions related to the dismissal of senior members of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. They have been subject of a trial in court and they both relate to staff of the legal department. The first was the result of a dismissal in 1974. I'm not sure when you were on the board, but that's where the first one was.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HALL: Oh, I remember it well.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you? Oh.

The other court award was recently reported in the newspaper, but the matter is still under active litigation, so I'm not able to comment on it.

You asked: "According to predictions of your corporation, during the strike 50,000 claims appear not to have been reported. Would you tell the committee if those claims have been established?" Some 50,000 claims were estimated. Over the succeeding months the corporation received claims which were reported and looked after, to where now the estimated outstanding claims have been reduced virtually to nil. So 50,000 was an estimate we put in.

You mentioned yesterday, although I guess Hansard did not record it or spell it properly.... You said: "Isn't ICBC already spending $20,000 per year with Decima research for reports?" The answer came back that we have no record of paying that particular company, but the spelling was wrong; you meant Decima. I believe — and I'll have this checked out — that instead of using Decima, which we've used for a number of years, this year we moved to this Delphi survey.

I think those were the questions. I have not got the answer back yet on the uninsured motorists, but I will endeavour to do so.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few brief comments before we get off the topic of ICBC. One is that there's been a lot of discussion about transactions, such as the rebates, that take so much time through ICBC, and I suggest that perhaps some of this is because of too much centralization. If agents are capable of selling the insurance — and I'm talking about private-enterprise agents, if you like; the insurance agents that do a lot of the business for ICBC — I would like to submit that they are also capable of returning money when a licence plate is turned in. It should not take months before a person has a refund, and I would suggest that it would probably increase efficiency immeasurably. Those agents in those offices depend on a commission, and if some commission is necessary for that transaction, so be it. I think it would probably cost

[ Page 7913 ]

less than processing it through headquarters if you allowed for time involved. Those agents have a vested interest in giving good and immediate service to those customers. Their return customers depend on it. I'd like to suggest to the minister that that is not necessarily the case with direct employees of the Insurance Corporation in that they are working for wages and whether the customer comes back is not that significant to them. So there would be an incentive for better service.

As far as the bookkeeping arrangements are concerned in that respect, the agents would be quite capable of sending in a report periodically saying that they have collected so much and withheld so much for these reasons. Whatever form it takes, they could send it in, and then it could be programmed into the computer. I think that would speed up a lot of cases where people turn in licence plates or make transactions and certainly the pro-rating formula. All of that could be available to those agents anyway.

The question, of course, would be whether that would take less staff in the ICBC direct employ and whether the members opposite support that kind of a reduction, because they are known to support the unions very much and so they may say that we can't allow that sort of thing. I would submit that it would speed up a great many of the transactions. For the more serious cases involving arguments, I think people will be reasonable and recognize that it can't be done immediately or it has to be done at a higher level. But the small items could certainly be handled by agents and just have reports sent in.

I would like to say that in my function as an MLA I have received complaints from constituents regarding delays and transactions that were erroneous. In doing my job and contacting ICBC, I've always received very good help and support from the senior levels at ICBC. They are most helpful.

I would like to make a final point. I know there is a great deal of pressure from various sources in this province right now to raise the driving age, and I'm very concerned about that. I recognize that there is a relatively high percentage of accidents among young people, but so often our society responds by blanket punishment for everyone rather than dealing more severely and properly with the violators alone. For instance, if 25 percent of young drivers are having accidents, that is a tragic figure. But I would like to ask the minister to resist the pressure to have the driving age raised, because when 25 percent are having accidents, I would like to remind everyone that 75 percent are not having accidents, and I feel very strongly that those 75 percent should not be punished. So let's deal with the violators and, for goodness' sake, let's not all get on that simplistic bandwagon, which is that if we take everybody's rights away from them, we're going to help everyone or the majority. Let's deal more severely with those people who deserve to have their rights or privileges taken away from them, but let us not, for goodness' sake, punish all 16- 17- and 18-year-olds, many of whom are excellent drivers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the member has a good point with regard to local agents being able to handle refunds. The management of ICBC is addressing this question. One major concern is the time-payment plan and the local agent knowing whether the man's commitment to make his second or third instalment causes some problem. However, we are looking at two things: firstly, the individual console in the agent's office which gives him immediate access to the computer; and secondly, where volumes don't dictate that type of installation, direct phone access to the computer to get an amount. I agree with you that too much centralization is not good. Ninety percent of our role, I think, is providing service to the driving public, and one way we can serve them if they want a refund or some information is by having access to it and providing the service at the agent's office and not have them wait three or four weeks because we've got a big corporation in downtown Vancouver.

Regarding your comments about the age of the driver, your figures are probably not as good as mine. The statistic I have says that 88 percent of drivers under age 19 are good drivers. Why should we penalize 88 percent because 12 percent have proven to have a bad driving record? The FAIR program addressed that question. We sometimes forget about that. It said: "This is the end of discrimination for age, sex and marital status." It said: "The good driver will pay a reasonable premium and the bad driver will pay a penalty for his driving record." That, I think, is an approach that is more "fair" than just raising the age and catching those the good drivers in the net.

Although I'm asking the question of my constituents in mv newsletter — although the issue has been raised in the news media on a number of occasions — I don't disagree with what you say. It seems to me that we should address the question of the bad driver and treat the good driver accordingly, giving him a fair insurance rate rather than penalizing him.

MRS. WALLACE: Last Tuesday, at the beginning of last week, when we discussed the minister's estimates when they were first introduced in the House, the minister spent some time outlining the things that his ministry had been doing and the reasons therefore. I spent some time responding to that. I think, in fact, I spoke myself right into my red light that first time around. I would like to continue that line of questioning now in a little more specific and detailed way.

One of the first questions I have for the minister relates to his press release dated January 19, which was issued in Kelowna at the time the B.C. tree fruit growers were meeting. He indicated at that time that a new grant program for housing seasonal farmworkers was in the wheels. It said: "The seasonal workers' housing program is to be a three-year, $250,000-a-year, shared-cost program for growers who gross more than $10,000 a year from their operations." It said that the application was made to Treasury Board; that if approved, the program would come into effect on April 1 of this year; and that the grants would be paid on a first-come, first-served basis. What is the status of that program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you got another question?

MRS. WALLACE: There's another question in line with this press release.

You were also going to change the income assurance to 100 percent indemnity for an additional segment of designated commodity producers. The 100 percent would go from $20,000 to $27,000. An application for that change was made to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. I would like an answer from the minister on that press release.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe the press release states that we were looking at those. Those were two proposals that

[ Page 7914 ]

we were putting forward. Both of those proposals have been, you might say, caught up in the restraint program inasmuch as we had to, as ministries, limit our expenditures. As a result, we weren't able to make those amendments.

MRS. WALLACE: What you're telling me is that this was just so much propaganda at the B.C. Fruit Growers Association meeting, and that in effect nothing is happening with either of those programs. I was afraid that was going to be your answer. It certainly seems to me rather unfair to go and tell people that they're going to get these programs and then let them just fade into oblivion at a future date.

In a similar vein, at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture meeting at year ago, I believe it was, they were discussing a resolution regarding assistance on a lime program. At that time, I believe there was assurance from the ministry that there would be assistance forthcoming. Is that program also caught up in restraint, or is the liming assistance program going forward?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, the fruit growers' convention was in January. We were still in budget negotiations and discussions at that particular time. That is why I qualified my remarks at that time regarding applications for funding. I wasn't attempting, in any way, shape or form, to mislead any delegate to that convention.

The housing program for seasonal farmworkers is still under review, so we may be successful with that.

The first comments with regard to a liming program dealt with the possible use of that type of program in the compensation situation in the development of Site C — if it went ahead, it might be possible to use some of the compensation funds to develop agriculture in that area. The second area was looking at it in my budget, because of the interest that was shown. We did not put that into place this year. You might say it was caught up in the restraint program. It is a program that I think has merit, and it is possible we may pursue that next year.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his comments.

I would like to move now to the farm income insurance program. I have some real concerns about the dollars here. First of all, I would like to refer you to — unfortunately there are no page numbers — this detailed summary that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has introduced — "Detailed Summaries by Ministry" — which indicates, on your budget.... I am sorry there are no page numbers, but it is under votes 6.5.5 and 6.5.6. You will note that it indicates there that 6.5.5, crop insurance, was some $13 million in the 1981-82 budget; farm income assurance was $126,000. I am sure this must be an error. In fact, if you carry over to the final page 1t shows a total of $21 million for crop insurance and $96,000 for farm income assurance. I am sure that this information is in error.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you have the blue book?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I have the blue book too, but there is so much more detail in here. In attempting to use this to understand what the blue book says, I found myself in a bit of a problem. I am wondering whether or not there have been any checks and verifications made to find out whether or not this document is authentic and reliable, because that seems to be absolutely in error.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am looking at page 30 of the blue book. Farm income assurance, as the member can see there, was $13,663,377 for 1981-82; in 1982-83 it is budgeted at $21,255,112. Although I don't have the same document in front of me that you have, in that computer printout you have they are out of line. You might say that what you have there is in error. This is the final document, and I really don't know what you are referring to, because I don't have a copy with me. You are correct in saying that the amounts appear to be transposed.

MRS. WALLACE: I wanted to raise that point because I think that the members of the House would agree that it is very difficult to find out how those moneys are being expended when there is so little detail given in the blue book now. Take grants for example. It is just one big lump sum. Even in here it is very difficult to find out where grants have been made. I would urge the minister to ensure that next year this backup document, first of all, has page numbers on it and, secondly, is checked for accuracy, so that we do have that tool to work with to be able to understand what we are debating here.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Going on with farm income assurance, some $21 million is budgeted for this year. It is my understanding that the payments for the beef income insurance plan are usually made, for any given calendar year, about 50 percent out of one budget year and 50 percent out of the other. I wonder if you could tell me how much, if any, of last year's beef insurance plan was actually paid before March 31 of this year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff advise me that $14 million was paid out of 1981-82 — that is, last year's budget.

MRS. WALLACE: Fourteen million dollars was actually paid out. So then there is still a fair amount owing, eh? Is there something like $17 million owing on the beef plan, coming out of this year's beef plan to cover last year's? Is that a fair figure?

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff advise me that incomplete submissions — ones that are being further analyzed and have not been paid out — approximate about $2 million.

MRS. WALLACE: Only $2 million is owing on last year's beef plan from this year's budget; is that what you're telling me? Can you tell me, then, if any other plans from last year are to be paid out of this year's budget, and if so, the approximate amounts? I don't want exact figures. I gather from the farm community that there are some delays in getting this money, and I'd like the statistics on record as to where the minister stands.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My understanding is that all claims have been processed, and none has been delayed or held back. I think the member is aware that B.C. Tree Fruits' claims were processed. The beef producers got theirs by the end of April. Once the material comes in from either the packing house or the association, it is audited and checked, and we process the payments as quickly as possible. The record would probably show that we were a little earlier this year because of the pressure on the agricultural community as

[ Page 7915 ]

a result of high interest rates, etc. We tried to get the payments back to them as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: Did I understand the minister to say the beef payments went out in April? Would that not come out of this year's budget, not last year's?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The beef payments were all out by April, but those payments were charged to 1981-82. As the member is probably aware, the fiscal year ends but the books remain open to clear up some of those things. It just happens that the payments are approximately at the same time.

MRS. WALLACE: In spite of all that, does this $21 million allow anything for any new plans this year, or is it simply sufficient to cover what in your estimation will be needed in the coming year for plans presently in existence? Are any new plans under negotiation? Are you working towards new areas?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The renewal of two plans is under negotiation. One is potatoes, and I believe the other is raspberries.

MRS. WALLACE: Now that the Farm Income Assurance Fund has been recouped, how are those records being kept? And is the interest that will accrue being added to the funds available for farm income assurance? Are the moneys put in by the producers being carefully earmarked and the interest carefully accumulated, towards the payment of farm income assurance?

I notice an order-in-council dated April 28 that moves $1 million out of consolidated revenue for the farm income plan. Is this the way we're going to see the Farm Income Assurance Fund financed in the future? If it is going to be done through order-in-council by moving blocks of money, can we get details of what they actually cover?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Carry on.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says to carry on. He's going to see if he can put together an answer on that one.

You can gather from my questions that I am a little concerned about the future of the farm income insurance program. Certainly the farmers I've talked to are concerned about it. The minister keeps talking about how it is desirable to get the return out of the marketplace. We couldn't agree more; it would be fine if that could happen, but certainly it isn't at this point. Even with some degree of organization in the area of marketing on behalf of the farmers, it has been very difficult to do anything about controlling prices. There may be some control on those groups that have national schemes based on cost calculations, but certainly other plans like vegetables, pork, and all those products.... Beef, of course, is one that's subject to the whims of the marketplace and shows very heavy losses when those prices go down. We just aren't able to get it out of the marketplace at this time.

Surely the farm income assurance scheme is the one — I'm sorry the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) isn't here — that really does take into consideration a successful operation, because they are able to do a little better than the unsuccessful ones under the terms of that scheme. Also, it's a contributory scheme, an insurance plan where their payments come in. It seems to me that that is the one program that is best able to ensure the viability of the farming community until we reach a point where the return comes from the marketplace.

It's fine to move in that direction, but along with that we have to ensure that there is some way to protect the rights of the low-income people, who have to have the right to provide an adequate diet to their growing children and themselves. It is a social problem that will be a long time in being resolved. In the meantime, the farm income assurance scheme was established to ensure a viable return to the farmer, and it is an insurance scheme. It does have the flexibility to reward productivity. I hate to see any move that limits its operation, and I'm a little concerned that the $21 million in the budget is not going to be enough to cover all the needs for the future. I can't talk about legislation, Mr. Chairman, but there is some material before this Legislature which limits the funds that can be spent on farm income assurance to the amount of the existing fund, matching premiums and so on. I have some concerns about that, and I wonder if the minister is now prepared to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, is it agreed that the House Leader may make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I ask all members to join me in a very cordial welcome to a number of students from Point Grey Secondary School in Vancouver, in company with their teacher Mr. John Plommer. They have the distinctive motto "Honor ante honores," or honour before honours. I was proud to be a member of that school, along with my colleague Dr. Patrick McGeer. It's nice to have them here.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, what used to be special funds are now special accounts. Each plan is kept separately, and the producers' premium is identified in those accounts as opposed to going into special funds.

MRS. WALLACE: What about the interest?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No interest is paid. Those are premiums going into an account. As the member knows, the government puts its funds into that account as well.

MRS. WALLACE: So you're telling me that the farmers' premiums that go in there will sit there, and the interest will go into consolidated revenue. The premiums paid by the farmers will not be used for farm income assurance. That is not acceptable to me, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would also be well aware that many of those accounts are in a deficit balance, which really means that the farm community has taken advances, and the government has put up more than its share of the premium. You can understand the reason no interest is paid on the producers' premium.

MRS. WALLACE: Unfortunately the question standing in my name on the order paper which would have provided me with that information has not yet been answered. I would have been very interested in having that, because I'm not at all sure whether apple producers should be paying for the

[ Page 7916 ]

production of beef. Anyway, that seems to me a rather unfair procedure.

I want to deal next with the interest reimbursement program. This has caused a lot of concern in the farming community. George Aylard, the head of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, has been quoted as saying at an annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association on March 31: "Economists are predicting a decline in farm incomes of 15 to 28 percent for 1982. This is certainly not the time for support programs to be cut unrealistically, as we believe has been done in the case of the interest, reimbursement program."

As I pointed out a week ago or more, when we started discussing these estimates, the higher the prime rate goes the better off the Minister of Agriculture is with his determination to pay only 1 percent below prime. A great many of these loans are financed by various monetary institutions. The farm credit rate is, I believe, something like 16.75 percent. So you get a situation where a lot of the interest rate falls right through the cracks. Many people who have sizeable loans are getting nothing out of this 1 percent below prime when prime is very high. In fact, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture brief presented to our caucus and, I believe, to your caucus estimated that you probably have too much in the budget if you persist in sticking to 1 percent below prime. They have done some work, and I have done some work, and it seems to me that if you were to rebate back to 9 percent — which seems like a pretty low rate of interest today, but you must remember that when this program started, the rebate was back to 8 percent.... Do you know the estimated cost to rebate to 9 percent all farm loans in this province? It's $45 million. That's a fair chunk of money. You must remember that if you keep the agricultural community viable, it has very good potential for job creation. The ratio is something like 1:5 of people actually engaged in agriculture to people engaged in related industry.

If you keep that industry viable, you're creating jobs. The government had no compunction about voting a special warrant for $45 million for northeast coal. To create one job in mining is a lot more costly than to create one job in agriculture. Certainly a $45 million interest reimbursement program would infuse such a degree of activity into the agricultural industry that we would see a tremendous job creation there; we would see viability in that industry; we would see the related industries booming and a great many more jobs created. It's a move that would appear to me to be a wise use of government money if they're really concerned about two things: one is job creation and the economy, and the other is the well-being of agriculture. Certainly the two are very closely related.

A week ago the minister stood in this House and spoke about how good it was that we had agriculture as a stable industry, now that mining and forestry were in trouble. That would be the place to invest some dollars to ensure that the agricultural community — the people who work in it and the people who could be employed in it — have that opportunity. But that's not happening; instead, we have $10 million in here. You've said that the rest of society would be upset if you put too many dollars in there. This government is quite prepared to vote vast sums of money to other jurisdictions, supposedly in the name of job creation and to stimulate particular industries, but we don't seem to see it happening in agriculture.

Again I would point out that agriculture has one of the highest multiplier ratios of any industry; also the cost of creating a job is one of the lowest. As far as I'm concerned, it's poor economy to cut back on things that are really causing problems in the agricultural industry.

The minister spoke about how well farmers were managing their businesses, that they were consolidating their operations. That's right: they're consolidating their operations. Do you know what he means by that, Mr. Chairman? He means they're selling off part of it; they're curtailing their operations. That's what he means by "consolidating." That's what's happening with a great many of the farmers whom I've talked to. Because of high interest costs, they're being forced to get rid of some of the property, some of the high capitalization, and consolidate or curtail their operations, as he says, in order to meet their mortgage payments.

I think the minister and I are on different tracks on this farm interest reimbursement program. I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye. I have pointed out to him in quite some detail the reasons why I think he's following the wrong direction.

It's my understanding that there is no additional government funding going into ALDA. The revolving door is closed. The money that is in there is simply revolving and will stay there to be reused, but no additional funds are being put into that program. This seems to be a poor time to cut back on much needed assistance for a very stable and important industry. In tough times — these are tough times — I think the government has a responsibility to ensure that programs are available to keep the industry alive. It seems to me a very poor time to stop any additional funding going into the ALDA program. In fact, it is my understanding that no new applications can be received there. There are already far more applications in than there are funds to cover, just as a carryover from the preceding year. It is a nothing program this year.

We briefly discussed ARDSA before. We discussed it under another form in this Legislature, too, but I wonder now if we can talk about dollars. There are $12 million sitting there unspent. These are 50-cent dollars if the federal scheme is continued. If not, will the moneys there this year from the province for their share be used this year?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The budget indicates some $10 million for this year, but that's already committed. With that commitment out I believe there is still $12 million available from the federal funding. I am wondering just where we are going on that program, if we are going to move ahead on that at all this year or if it has just ground to a halt at this point in time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: April 17 was a big day in the history of Canada. It was the day of the patriation for the Canadian constitution, but it was similarly a big day for the town of Port McNeill. As a matter of fact, it was April 17 when Port McNeill became a town. It was incorporated as a village in 1966. It certainly grew and gained prominence on the North Island and it was incorporated as a town — the first Canadian municipal incorporation under the authority of the

[ Page 7917 ]

patriated Canadian constitution — on April 17. Today a delegation from Port McNeill that I would like to introduce to the House and have you welcome was at Government House in order to officially have the proclamation read and to receive the message of good wishes from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor personally. I am sure the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will add to the welcome, so I will speak for myself and welcome Mayor Gerry Furney and Mrs. Furney; Alderman John Ferrari; Alderman Bert Jensen and Mrs. Jensen; Alderman Robert Borden, who is also the chairman of the regional district; and Alderman Bill Kinley. I would ask to have the House extend to them a congratulatory message through our welcome on this occasion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The introduction would appear more in the order of a ministerial statement. The member for North Island may wish to reply.

MR. GABELMANN: That is a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that we may want to remember.

I just want to join with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in welcoming the group from Port McNeill and also extend my congratulations to them on their recent historic event of becoming a town on the day of the proclamation of the constitution in this country. I just want to add my words of welcome and congratulations. Gerry, I think we have a few things to talk about, and we'll be chatting anon.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member talked about the interest reimbursement program and keeping the figure to which interest costs are taken down to 9 percent. I just want the House to know that that type of approach, I think, would not really be that well received by the farm community, and I'll try to explain why. You could see very quickly that a farmer, being a businessman, would look at that program and say: "If I'm very astute, I'll keep my operating capital high and I'll invest my funds in term deposits, because the cost of the money is only 9 percent" — and that would really not be fair to the taxpayers of the province. The member mentions that it would only cost $45 million to maintain that program. and I can only say that I think, Madam Member, that we would be remiss as politicians and as members of government if we put in place a program such as that, because it would not be realistic at this particular point in time.

I appreciate that the farm community is hurting, and I guess I'm only repeating the comments you made about all other sectors of the economy are hurting. We provide some relief when we take the interest costs down to 1 percent below prime, and in that way it does assist the farm community. Also consolidation is taking place. A lot of the farm community, recognizing the cost of money, are reducing their indebtedness in order to keep their costs down, the same as other businessmen do. I think that program does give realistic assistance. The solution to the problem, I think, is more when those interest rates move down, as opposed to how we could subsidize the farm community by an excessive program if we took them down to 9 percent.

The ALDA program. There is $3 million in the budget. It is a revolving fund made up of the payments that are received; the payments, of course, include interest on the loans outstanding. That fund will continue to revolve to provide new funds for new loans.

The ARDSA program. In 1982-83 we have approximately $10 million in it. We had not expended all the moneys under that program. There was a total of $60 million. made up of $30 million from the federal government and $30 million from ourselves. At the present time we are looking at the possibility of extending that program in order to continue to provide the ARDSA program to the farm community and to use up the balance of that $60 million, which is about $12 million. At present it is under consideration as to whether or not we can extend that program.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister has received a copy of a letter, I think it is, directed to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture from the B.C. Chicken Growers Association, interior division. over the signature of Rod Speidel of Armstrong, so I won't bother reading it. I think the minister is probably familiar with it, but I would draw to his attention that it is supported by a petition of quite a number of area farmers who are concerned about the discrepancy in freight rates between that particular area of the province and other areas. They attach the freight-rate differentials showing a comparison of the freight rates from the coast, the Fraser Valley and from the interior. It shows that corn shipments from Manitoba to the interior are $46.30 a metric tonne, and a subsidy of $4.50 is provided, which reduces the freight cost to $41.80, whereas from Manitoba to Abbotsford, for the same commodity, the basic freight rate of $46.30 brings a subsidy of $11.50, making the net freight cost $34.80. They also list other food supplies, meals and wheat, and the same kind of subsidy advantage exists for the Fraser Valley over that area of the central interior.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like the minister to respond as to what his ministry is considering in terms of some kind of equalization so that no area of the province has a competitive advantage, through,, government subsidy. over another. I don't know whether or not the minister has yet replied to the chicken producers in that area. Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether this subsidy is totally a provincial one or a federal one, but whether or not it is under the sole control of the provincial ministry, I would think that the minister would have a responsibility and interest in ensuring that subsidies for the farmers in British Columbia are equitable and provide assistance to the farming community without giving advantage to one area over another. Whether it is necessary to deal with the federal minister in this respect or not, the responsibility is still the same. I am sure the minister would agree that he would want to see an equitable and fair system of freight-rate subsidies for all areas of the province which would preclude setting up this kind of apparent competitive advantage to the Fraser Valley in this respect. I would appreciate receiving the minister's comments on this point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't get the first dollar figures that the member mentioned regarding the interior. I gather, though, that the interior does not get the same benefit as the coast — the Fraser Valley producers — and that is discrimination or inequality. It is a federal subsidy under the feed freight assistance program administered by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. We monitor that program. From time to time they talk about doing away with it, but we've been successful in maintaining that program. We support equal consideration to all parts of the province. Although I don't have it in front of me here, I am sure we would have followed

[ Page 7918 ]

up on that and expressed our concern about discrimination within the province to the federal agency, which is the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his reply. The figure was for corn from Manitoba to the interior, a $4.50 subsidy on a basic freight rate of $46.30 — in other words, a net rate of $41.80 — whereas from Manitoba to Abbotsford there was an $11.50 subsidy on the basic $46.30 freight rate, for a net price of $34.80, giving the Fraser Valley a competitive advantage of some $9 or close to it. I would appreciate it if the minister would follow up on that with the federal authorities, and perhaps he would be kind enough to let me know the results of his representations to the federal authorities in that respect. The farming community in my area is vitally concerned in this way.

I've raised with the minister on a number of occasions in the past the question of the secondary roads and the load limitations in the interior, a major factor for most of the livestock producers up there. When they have to haul grain supplies from area suppliers and those suppliers are limited by the load restrictions through the Ministry of Highways, then the grain suppliers are talking about increasing the prices because their volume of hauling is down. I don't know whether the minister pursued that last year, or had any discussions with the area feed suppliers or with the farmers involved, but it is an ongoing problem. I think it can be partially mitigated by persuading his colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to pay closer attention to the improvement of those secondary roads in that area. Many of them are very old. Anything we can do to minimize the cost of food production in the province is money well spent. I suggest we have an obligation to provide good standard roads for those old areas of the province before undertaking major new construction projects. I would appreciate the minister's having a look at that particular problem, which I think is more peculiar to the interior of the province than anywhere else. When we have breakup in the spring, as a matter of course, we have these load restrictions, sometimes for up to a six week period, and it really interferes with the flow of feed supplies to the farmers.

There's one other thing I wanted to mention to the minister. We have a particular flooding problem in the Armstrong area at the moment from Otter Creek, which flows through the valley from Armstrong pretty well down to Otter Lake. I was there last week and viewed this acreage that is now under flood. I don't know exactly how many farms are involved, but I'm told some 600 to 650 acres are under water. Apparently there's a fairly high salinity to the water, and it sours the land and prevents viable crops from being planted in what is very productive valley bottom land.

It occurred to me that some assistance might be available for dredging the canal that carries this runoff down to Otter Lake. I don't know whether the proper approach for a possible program along that line would be through the minister and his department or through the federal authorities with the ARDSA program. I would appreciate receiving a response from the minister on what might be done to institute a program which could reclaim a very large and significant amount of acreage in what I say is very highly productive land.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I recall the debate we had last year regarding the area that had problems with breakup on the roads and the ability to move in supplies. I discussed that with the minister, and I believe some permits were issued to allow trucks to get into that area. It's an annual problem, as the member knows, because of spring breakup.

I'm not aware of the flooding in the Armstrong area. The Ministry of Environment, with regard to flood control, may have some interest in the comments the member makes. We have, of course, the ARDSA program, which is a joint federal and provincial program. In the past my ministry has become involved in drainage programs, and that's a possibility if we get the present ARDSA extended for a further year.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there are just two or three other things that I would like to raise with the minister. The DATE program — again, because of this new form of reporting, I'm having difficulty knowing whether or not it's in the budget and, if so, what's being done with it. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what he is proposing in this particular area of research and development. It's the one area in his budget where he gets into demonstrably innovative methods of proceeding with agriculture. I'm wondering whether there have been any applications, what projects are underway, whether it was carried out last year, what was done last year and how many dollars he actually has in the budget this year for the program.

I note that he's looking through his books there, so while he's finding that, perhaps I could also ask him.... I suspect that this may be connected with this program, but I'm not sure. I notice that last year under the deputy minister's vote there was a payment to Ickes-Braun Glasshouses of some $20,600, under the code of 2001, which is, I believe, professional and consulting services. I'm just wondering what that particular item was and whether or not it's connected with the DATE program.

While he's looking for that I can carry on with another question, on the aid to developing countries program. I note that there appears to have been some $393,000 spent last year on that program, as recorded in the computer runs, if I'm reading them correctly. Again, we're working under quite some difficulties in trying to interpret the material that we have in so many different forms this year. I am sure we will accommodate to it as time goes by, but it does make it difficult to compare what was spent last year on the aid to developing countries program to what is proposed for this year and how that relates to the requests that came in from various organizations around this province for the matching funds. Were there more applications than there was money, or was there more money than there were applications? It would help a great deal if that minister could get his reports into the Legislature before his estimates come out. He has had quite a length of time this year — from the first of April until the first of June — and there is still no report. It makes it difficult to know what we are dealing with here.

My next question is quite unrelated to those, so perhaps the minister is prepared to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The DATE program has $97,000 allocated to it. I believe that is the figure. The agricultural aid to developing countries program has $427,000, the same as it was last year. The report on the agricultural aid to developing countries program is at the printers at the present time.

[ Page 7919 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I remember that last year it was filed the day after we finished the estimates. Out of $427,000, am I correct that you spent $393,000 last year on aid to developing countries?

The other question is about Ickes-Braun Glasshouses. An expenditure of $20,600 is shown on the computer runs. Have you any idea what that was for?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Was that under the deputy minister's vote?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, under the deputy minister's vote, code 2001.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Madam Member, it is not often that my staff is confused, but I have to tell you that they are trying to figure out what this Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, or whatever it is you are referring to, is. It appears that what you have in front of you is a computer printout. I don't believe it's the document that we have. I believe that must be from Treasury Board or the Ministry of Finance. I'm not sure where you've got it from, but we don't seem to be able to equate. I notice it is fairly bulky and it folds out to a massive number of items. We will note the comments you made. If you will just repeat them once more so we get the name of the item you are talking about, I will have my staff get the information on it.

MRS. WALLACE: You are right; it is quite lengthy, Mr. Minister. I was trying to find the actual spot on the run so I could send it over so you could see it. My handwritten note here shows it as Ickes-Braun Glasshouses.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is that last year's expenditure?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, ending March 31, 1982. It is $20,600 under code 2001. As I glanced through those, that was the one thing that piqued my curiosity and I wondered what it was.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the details she has given us and I will get an answer for her.

MRS. WALLACE: The other question — and perhaps I can get the answer when I get the report — is that it seems we had moneys allocated for aid to developing countries that weren't expended. I didn't get an answer as to whether that was because there weren't enough applications for shared funds or whether it was just that they weren't all processed or accepted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My deputy minister indicates to me that to his knowledge we expended all the moneys last year in that agricultural aid to developing countries program. We are not sure where you get the $393,000, but I will have a response back to the member on whether it was totally expended last year.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to touch briefly on this business of user fees and what is happening with some of the agricultural facilities that farmers use. We found the fees going up considerably. I understand that brand inspection is going from 45 cents a head to $1 a head next year. Various things are going up: dairy-herd improvement, meat inspection.... That veterinary lab has gone up tremendously. There's quite a persistent rumour around that those fees are going to increase even more; that the intent seems to be to move toward 100 percent recovery of cost. In fact, some in the farm community are saying: "If this happens we'd be far better to establish our own facility, because we can probably run it cheaper than the government can." Is that the direction in which you're going. Mr. Minister? Is it your intent to put economic pressure on the farmers and to phase out these services by extremely high charges for their use?

I wanted to mention another item. It's one that I'm sure the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will be pleased to hear about, although I'm sure he won't agree with what I have to say. This problem of wildlife is generally affecting the farm community right around the province. We're finding a situation in which a particular species is protected by the law; then that protected species destroys crops or animals or whatever. Of course, I'm thinking of the case where grain crops are destroyed by birds, particularly in the Fraser Valley and on the Island. Wolves, of course, are another problem. Deer are a problem.

The farm community certainly recognizes that we need to arrive at a more comprehensive management scheme for wildlife. In the cases where wildlife has been protected and there is crop damage, there should be compensation. This morning the minister said that he really didn't agree with the idea of compensation — at least, I think that's what he said. This is something that is done in other provinces throughout Canada. If it's limited to the protected species, it's not as expensive as one might think. That's really all that the organized agricultural community is asking for at this point in time. I'm wondering whether he is prepared to go along with that request for compensation.

There's one other item I want to deal with. While it's really more of a federal matter, I think it has to be of concern to this minister. It is the problem of freight rates, particularly the controversy over the Crow rate that is going on at the present time. The government seems to take the stand that it's not necessary to maintain the Crow rate, that it really isn't going to affect British Columbia farmers. The BCR, of course, hauls most of our agricultural products here. It's one that has sort of matching subsidies, although it's not affected by the Crow rate — they have been getting subsidies. It's of interest to consider just what will happen to the BCR if in fact the Crow rate goes. Is BCR going to continue the service of hauling grain? Are we going to be so tied up using the funds to build coal cars to haul coal that there will be no precedence given to hauling grain? Is that going to happen generally around this country if that Crow rate goes? There's no assurance that the railways will be obliged to provide that service.

You can talk about raising rates. At least when we had the Crow rate, it was an agreement between governments and the railway company that they would haul that grain. There's no doubt that there have been lots of problems. But to just abolish it instead of subsidizing the railway — and it is a subsidy — and to try to tell the farmers that you're going to somehow repay them seems to me to be a a very ridiculous approach — to issue cheques to 10,000 farmers, rather than just subsidize the railway for a service provided. Certainly the commitment was made.

The railways talk about losing money, but I can't shed any crocodile tears for them. If you look at the figures, they

[ Page 7920 ]

haven't lost anything like the funds they say they have lost. They have had subsidies, they have had payments, and they have had their freight rates, even under the Crow rate. So the losses have not been anything like they've said. It has been the one thing that has kept the grain producers in business.

It's all well and good to say that it doesn't relate to B.C., but it does relate to B.C., Mr. Minister. It's something that the farming community has some pretty grave concerns about, particularly in the northern part of British Columbia. They are moving quite strongly, as I'm sure you're aware. We've had many delegations come and talk to us — and I'm sure that you have too — expressing their concern about the loss of the Crow rates. They're moving very heavily in that direction. I see nothing except opposition to it from that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you opposed to the Crow rate?

MRS. WALLACE: No, I support the retention of the Crow rate, as does our party. You should know that, Mr. Member.

I don't know if the minister wishes to respond to that business about the user fees and the Crow rate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, before I go to some of the last questions, I'm advised by my staff that the figure I used of $97,000 for the DATE program is actually $90,000. I just want to correct the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liar!

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's late in the day, Mr. Member, so we won't comment on your remark.

Review of the user fees is carried out from time to time. You mentioned the cattle-inspection fee going up to $1; that matter has been under discussion with the cattle industry for some time. You can recognize increased costs that are incurred by the government in providing those services, and we've attempted to move our fees to take those costs into consideration. In most cases you're looking at fees covering approximately 50 percent of the actual cost of providing the service.

With regard to wildlife, yes, it is a problem. We discussed the wolf problem this morning. You deal with the problem of migratory birds, and those items can be managed from time to time through such programs as crop insurance. They have in other parts of Canada, particularly the Prairies. That's an approach that could be considered.

I'm interested that your party and yourself support the retention of the Crow rate. I wasn't sure just where you stood on that issue. We have stated publicly that compensatory rates appear to be the proper way to address the question of improving transportation lines across Canada and providing the ability to move our product — whether it be farm product or other product — to our ports. We have said again publicly that any assistance paid out should go to the farmer as opposed to a subsidy to the rail line, and that has been our stand in the past.

The major thing here, of course, is to provide the revenues to the rail lines to enable them to upgrade, double-track and improve transportation services in the country. The federal Minister of Transport has indicated that there would be ongoing assistance in the amount of $600 million per year, I believe it is, which is the difference between the Crow rate and a compensatory rate at this particular time. But on top of that Dr. Gilson has carried out his studies. I believe they were to be in by May 31. We'll be reporting to the federal department and there will be amendments forthcoming. But at least it was an opportunity for all farm groups to have input and to express their concern or their support for any amendment at this time.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Minister, we've dealt with a great many of the facets of your ministry, and I guess there are many things that we will just have to disagree about.

Certainly I have some concerns about your commitment to the agricultural community. You will recall that last October for the first time in British Columbia the B.C. Federation of Agriculture sponsored an agricultural week. I certainly knew about that almost a year before it happened, and I'm sure that you must have known too, Mr. Minister. Yet you were not here; you were in Europe. I'm sure the agricultural community was very disappointed that you were not sufficiently concerned about the future of agriculture. You tell us you are concerned about marketing and public image, yet when the agricultural community gets together and puts up funds to sponsor an agriculture week you apparently do not think it sufficiently important to bother attending.

I am surprised we're discussing agricultural estimates today. Since April 1 we have had — and probably will have until December 1, at the rate we are going — the chance to discuss agricultural estimates. We have some 19 other ministries which have not been discussed. Since April 5 we have been doing everything except agriculture, yet today, when you were expected to be in attendance at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture meeting in the interior, you are here discussing estimates. Certainly it would have been very easy to do this tomorrow or the next day. We have lots of other estimates we could have been discussing. It seems you are not that concerned about taking part in what is happening with agriculture.

We spent a lot of time earlier talking about our concerns on this side of the House regarding the agricultural land reserve. I am not quite sure where that minister stands. I thought maybe I knew on Friday, but when I listen to him on the radio today I am not too sure. We know where the Premier stands. He says agriculture doesn't contribute all that much to the province; pasture lands are nice to look at, but really the only thing we can grow is apples. The president of the Social Credit organization says he intends to phase out the agricultural land reserve. With those things happening, I don't think there's really any reason to wonder why we on this side of the House question the minister's commitment to agriculture. Certainly we are not alone. Last fall in Cranbrook an unprecedented thing happened when the B.C. Federation of Agriculture moved a vote of nonconfidence in the minister. They are not very happy with what he is doing. I think they share our concerns about the land reserve, the financial programs and the general commitment to the future of agriculture.

While I have nothing personal against this minister, I do have a commitment to agriculture, and I have a responsibility as the agricultural critic for the opposition. I therefore move that vote 5, the office of the Minister of Agriculture, be reduced from $164,608 to a price more befitting his worth: two bits.

[ Page 7921 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment is out of order due to the wording. An amendment of nonconfidence can move a reduction in terms of money. The Chair finds this amendment hard to understand and therefore will not accept it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I knew she was only fooling.

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe the chairman doesn't understand the amendment, but I'm sure a great many people in British Columbia can relate to a two-bit minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is unparliamentary. It's a personal allusion to an hon. member of this House. I'll ask the member to kindly withdraw out of courtesy to the Chair,

MRS. WALLACE: I will withdraw the "two-bit minister" and talk about a two-bit ministry. It's really not a two-bit ministry, Mr. Chairman, when you take a look at the minister's vote over the last few years. In 1978-79 the minister's office vote was $100,500; in 1979-80 it went to $109,800, an increase of 9 percent; in 1980-81 it went up to $129,500, an increase of 18 percent over the preceding year; and last year, 1981-82, it went from $129,500 to $161,000, an increase of 19 percent. As if that weren't enough, we had a special warrant for overexpenditure of another $30,000, which is another 19 percent increase. So, in effect, the total increase for 1981-82 over 1980-81 was 47 percent. Yet we talk about restraint. That's the kind of expense increase that that minister has been bringing to this Legislature over the last few years. He had a 19 percent increase last year, and he couldn't live within that budget; he had to have another $30,000.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

You'll recall that last year, of course, we went through a series of amendments to the estimates pointing out where there appeared to us to be excesses in expenditures, and we identified some $82 million of excessive expenditures in the field of travel and office furniture — expenditures above what was spent in preceding years. If times are tough, we should be able to tighten our belts a little bit as well as asking other people to do that.

This year we have identified in the minister's vote an increase in his travel expense, I believe it is — well, his supplies and services — of some $2,500. Therefore I would like to try this amendment, Mr. Chairman: that vote 5 be reduced by $2,500, which is an increase in the minister's personal expenses.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 28

Vote 5 approved.

On vote 6: ministry operations. $68,815,106.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a very major vote. In fact, this is the vote in the ministry. Everything is lumped into one vote now. We have some concerns on this side of the House about this new system of bookkeeping. I have raised those under the minister's vote. I have raised all items under the minister's vote because of my concern that if I didn't raise it there it might not be included in this one because it is so difficult to find out exactly what is included.

In any event, we have identified in this vote that the government is up to its old tricks. In this vote, under professional and special services. we see a 15.6 percent increase in a year of restraint, a year where other organizations, jurisdictions and persons are being asked to confine their increases to a much lower failure. Here we have a 15.6 percent increase in professional and special services. Travel is up by some $57,000 or 13.6 percent over last year. You must remember that these figures were nearly all figures that we challenged last year as being too high. Now we are showing these kinds of percentage increases in these same programs again this year. Advertising is not as bad as some. It is only up 6.7 percent, but we still feel that the minister should be able to hold the line on that. Data processing has gone from $421,450 to $654,310, an increase of $232,860 or 55.3 percent, and that minister and that cabinet talk about restraint.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: BCBC has gone up in the amount of $630,000 or 16.4 percent. When you add them all together, those increases come to $1,216,050, and I move. Mr. Chairman, that vote 6 be reduced by that amount.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

[ Page 7922 ]

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 6 approved.

Vote 7: Milk Board, $293,292 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,134,152 — approved.

Vote 9: ICBC Senior Citizens' Grant, $6,000,000 — approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour, I move the committee rise, report great resolution and ask leave to sit again.

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 recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in two budget speeches in this Legislative Assembly I have spoken about the concept of a resource revenue stabilization fund. I've also spoken about the importance of establishing such a stabilization fund as a focal point in improved financial management and budget planning for the province of British Columbia. This bill provides authority to establish this fund.

The purpose of the fund is to accumulate a contingency balance during periods of strong resource revenue growth, to be used in periods of revenue weakness in the future. In past years, the government has used the revenue surplus account and special purpose funds for this purpose. The foresight of this course of action is clearly evident. However, these accounts and funds, which are the subject of other legislation before the Assembly, are not ideally suited for this function; therefore a special fund, the resource revenue stabilization fund, is being created.

I think members will admit that the need for such a fund lies in the extreme volatility of the province's natural resource revenue. For example, in 1979-80 resource revenue peaked at nearly $1.3 billion and accounted for 24 percent of that year's operating revenue. By 1981-82, resource revenue is estimated to have dropped 53 percent to $613 million, and represents 9 percent of operating revenue. In coming years, obviously a strong recovery in these revenues is expected again.

The kind of sound fiscal management we have practised requires that expenditure planning not be distorted by the uncertainties of resource revenue; nor should tax rates have to be constantly adjusted to compensate for very large and unpredictable swings in resource revenue. The resource stabilization fund will provide the necessary buffer. All resource revenue will be paid into the fund, and then the Minister of Finance will transfer from the fund each year an amount to balance the operating budget. The amount of the transfer obviously will be determined by the executive council; it will be announced as part of the budget plan each year and will be debated in that context. So in years of revenue strength money will be allowed to accumulate in the fund. In years of revenue weakness the cash assets of the fund will be drawn upon.

It must be stressed that the fund will not become a heritage fund for long-term savings, as is practised in one or two other jurisdictions; it will simply serve as a buffer fund to stabilize revenue over the medium term. In the years ahead this fund will become seen as a central element of responsible financial management. One could only wish that we had had such a fund in Canada and perhaps in one or two other provinces as well. It will also ensure that no future government is ever placed in the position where it has to resort to deficit financing because of a downturn in resource revenues, the peaks and valleys which characterize revenues in the province of British Columbia.

I hope — it may be a faint hope — that this measure will receive the unanimous support of members. I move second reading of the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support second reading of this legislation. We will use the minister's remarks during committee stage of discussion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for indicating that there will be debate in committee stage. I move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund 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: I think we will commence business again tomorrow afternoon. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.