[ Page 3087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

Marine industries reports. Mr. Hanson –– 3098

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

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 3088

Insurance corporation. Mr. Cocke –– 3089

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

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

On vote 44: minister's office –– 3090

Mrs. Dailly, Ms. Brown

On vote 46: Medical Services Commission –– 3091

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Ms. Brown

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

Mr. Passarell

On vote 48: institutional services –– 3093

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 3094

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

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 3104

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

Tabling Documents –– 3111

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome one of the leading architects of British Columbia, who is in the gallery today; he has been a distinguished citizen of British Columbia and of the city of Vancouver. Will the House please welcome Mr. Gerald Hamilton.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a constituent from Saanich and the Islands, Alice Howes, has brought along two guests today to observe the Legislature for a little while, Orville and Toni Davis of Swalwell, Alberta. Even though that name seems to have rolled off my tongue easily, I have no idea where Swalwell, Alberta, is, and I say that in all candour; however, it is near Threehills, and I'm busy checking on where Threehills is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to give greetings to two very distinguished Point Grey constituents. We don't often see people from the faraway area of Point Grey, but Mr. and Mrs. William Sauder are here today. Mr. Sauder is a member of the board of governors of UBC. This is a very important function — and constituency, rivalling that of Saanich and the Islands.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to extend every good wish to the Canadian athletes who are now in Yugoslavia. I hope that it could be a unanimous good wish from this Legislature, and that you would send a telegram to that effect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce Mr. Sander and his lovely wife, but since my colleague Mr. McGeer did, I'll just say that Mr. Sauder also served as a director of the British Columbia Development Corporation for a number of years.

Also in the gallery today is an ex-member of this Legislature, who used to represent the city of Victoria, Newell Morrison, who is also chairman of the British Columbia Development Corporation. I'd like you to make Newell welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are a number of people from Bowen Island. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Gail Taylor, who represents the chamber of commerce on Bowen Island. I don't see them in the gallery, but I'm sure the following are still on the premises: George Helenius, who is the GVRD representative for Bowen Island, and John Rich, who is the Islands Trust representative for Bowen Island. They were all here today to meet with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I would like this House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, one of your constituents who was visiting and had lunch with me today is Dr. Alvin Bastedo, who is a well-known man in British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. PARKS: In your gallery this afternoon — and I'm sure we are going to see them on numerous occasions for the next few weeks — are four legislative interns. As we are all aware, through the auspices of your good office there is a program that allows students to partake in the legislative process. I'd like you to welcome the four legislative interns assigned to the government caucus: Nancy Morgan, Matthew Davies, Steve Fudge and Ray Bryant.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today. First of all, I'd ask the House to welcome Pat May and Marlene Purvey. This is their first visit to the House. Mrs. May is on her way to take up residence in Australia and I'd ask the House to bid her bon voyage.

We also have with us today Mr. Bill Richardson, the national president of the Society of Management Accountants of Canada, Mr. Bill Langdon, the executive vice-president, and a good friend of mine, Mr. Bill Easton, whose title, I think, is executive director of the Society of Management Accountants of B.C. I'd ask the House to bid these gentlemen welcome.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS — FORESTRY

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. On Friday 506 forestry jobs were axed by the minister, bringing the total to around 1,400. Does the government plan further reductions in the role of the government in the forest industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can't recall that the government's role in forestry has ever been diminished. It's been expanding rather remarkably over the last few years.

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the fact that many of the personnel involved perform revenue functions, such as scaling and auditing, has the minister determined the revenue implications of this kind of privatization of forest management?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The reduction in staff positions announced last Friday goes across the entire spectrum of the activities of the ministry, and there are no more involved in the revenue-collection function than in any other function. It will not have any negative effect on that part of our ministry's activities.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: All the moves that the ministry is making and has been making over the last year have been very carefully thought out, and I can assure the member that there will be no negative effect on revenue-collection. I'm sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would not allow me to do that.

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

[ Page 3088 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Changes will be made from time to time in all ministries of government. I can't lay out for the member now just what our future plans are, but as they develop we'll advise the member and the House.

PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS — VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: The layoff of 55 forestry staff in Victoria on Friday is the culmination of several years of a depopulation policy for Victoria by this government. Has the Minister of Finance decided to place a moratorium on further provincial government job transfers and job cuts in Victoria?

[2:15]

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

MR. BLENCOE: Victoria has reached the staggering level of 16.2 percent unemployed. That means that the capital of British Columbia is now officially classified as a depressed area in Canada. It's a very sad day, and a sad reflection on this government. The question that many people are asking, and that I am certainly asking, is: when will the provincial government stop ripping the economic guts out of this city by removing the provincial government payroll?

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Without necessarily accepting the editorial comment contained in the question, I have spoken to a number of people engaged in business activity in the greater Victoria area; I intend, as a greater Victoria member, to do so again — and repeatedly — over the coming months. There is something wrong in the greater Victoria area, particularly when one examines the unemployment rate for the province as a whole and notes that January 1984 over January 1983 shows a significant decline. In addition, we note that for Canada as a whole, January 1984 is down just slightly over January 1983. In other words, the unemployment situation in the province, while still of concern, is showing marked improvement. I suggest that the cure in the city of Victoria rests with a number of agencies and organizations, not exclusively with the government of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: What a ridiculous answer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

Supplementary to the minister, how high does the unemployment rate have to get in this city before the provincial government recognizes the serious economic burden it is placing on Victorians and takes remedial action? And when will the minister recognize that his policies and his budget are creating chaos in this community and this province?

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I attempted to assist the member in the earlier answer. I consider that there are problems in the capital region which are not exclusively the responsibility of the government of British Columbia. The member perhaps did not hear what I said earlier: that is that the unemployment rate in the province of British Columbia shows a decline January over January. That is something which should be an important signal to that member, as well as to others who make decisions in greater Victoria.

MARINE INDUSTRIES REPORTS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks, Housing and the Environment. As the minister is aware, one way of creating employment in this region is specialty processing of fish products. There was a major cannery here, and a producer of specialized products for Japan at the Oakland Fisheries. The minister has had two consultant reports in his ministry office for some months which indicate that a management plan, properly executed, could create a large number of jobs in this area, plus be an anchor for our marine industries. Will the minister advise this House why the government has not expedited the recommendations of those consultant reports to stabilize the marine industries of our city?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To be correct, I will go back to those reports, which I'm not that familiar with, nor with the recommendations. I do know that in general terms you depend on markets. You know, we can always produce products, but is the market there? I'll check into that.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The consultant reports indicate that in fact the markets are there. The fault lies with the fact that we were selling our fish in the round in raw form at export and not adding value to those products by pickling, smoking, jarring, canning and other labour-intensive activities. So I would appreciate the minister taking a serious look at the opening of Oakland.

B.C. FISHERMEN LOBBY

MRS. WALLACE: I have a further question for the Minister of Environment relative to the fishing industry, which seems to be fast disappearing here in British Columbia. Fishermen are lobbying in Ottawa this week; what assistance has this province given to aid those fishermen in their fight for survival?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, we have been involved to the extent possible in the negotiations on the fish treaties with the United States. We're monitoring all that is happening and providing whatever assistance we can.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Did the minister state at a press conference at Fort St. John in January of this year that in his opinion the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission over northeastern British Columbia should be eliminated?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I didn't have a press conference, but I did have a discussion with people. I said that

[ Page 3089 ]

that subject had been discussed many times in front of me and other members of cabinet, that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve need not encompass the whole province and that there are certain areas that don't need to be covered. It was not a statement of government policy; it was a matter of general conversation. I do recall making that statement. [Applause.]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it appears from the applause that there is widespread support for that particular concept as advanced by the minister.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes, the backbenchers here as well as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) supported this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he concurs in the statement just given to this Legislature by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

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

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister heard my question, because he certainly didn't answer it. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food concur in the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that there are some areas of this province over which the agricultural land reserve should not have the jurisdiction it now has?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer remains the same, Mr. Speaker: the policy of the government regarding the agricultural land reserve remains unchanged.

INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. COCKE: He's lost in Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of ICBC, the member for Boundary Similkameen. Will the minister advise what consideration the government is giving to selling ICBC — that is, turning over all operations to the private insurance companies?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I think the response of the Minister of Agriculture and Food is the same as the one I will give. The government policy is to operate ICBC as we have done in the past; until that policy changes it's business as usual.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise why the government commissioned a $120,000 Goldfarb survey in January 1984 to test public opinion on this matter, among others?

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

MR. COCKE: The Goldfarb public opinion survey asked the public what their opinion was on privatizing ICBC. It was a $120,000 Goldfarb report, commissioned by the government. We don't have the answer; you have the answer. That's what we'd like to know.

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

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

There is a committee consisting of Patrick Kinsella, Jill Bodkin, Jake Brouwer, Tom Holmes and Michael Burns, and their job is to develop some policy with respect to privatizing. Would you tell us whether you've had the report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not aware of a committee made up of all the people that the member for New Westminster mentions, but I can advise him that I sat on a committee that was to analyze the operations of ICBC, and it was a very comprehensive study we went into as a committee. No action has been taken on that, and no recommendations have been dealt with. As I said before, the corporation operates its business as usual until the government policy changes.

COAL SLICK ON STUART CHANNEL

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question for the Minister of Environment. I'm sure that we were all a bit shocked to see the black sludge that appeared on the Stuart Channel yesterday. Will the minister advise what investigation, if any, he has launched into that five-mile strip of black slick in the vicinity of Yellow Point and Thetis Island that occurred yesterday?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I so far have heard the news and I contacted.... I do read the paper as well. I have asked senior members in my ministry to report. I have complete faith that some of our people will be on it and investigating. Later this afternoon I expect a report on their participation in this.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder whether or not the minister has considered investigating the practices of the coal freighters that are awaiting berth at Roberts Bank, with a view to determining whether the slick originated from one of those vessels. Will that be included in your investigation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in all cases of pollution or potential pollution problems, we always try to determine the source and investigate that.

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

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

[ Page 3090 ]

in fact, as pointed out to me by Howard Lloyd after that statement, on both occasions Howard Lloyd had sold out to his partners and it was his partners who subsequently sold out to these multinational companies. I wish to apologize for any embarrassment this may have caused Mr. Lloyd.

Orders of the Day

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

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me a press clipping from February 3, reporting on a speech made by one of the minister's officials, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health. I'd like to give a quote to the minister and get a comment from him:

"Cardiff said he especially liked Nielsen's latest comment about the highly politicized federal-provincial health conflict: 'To hell with her. We will wait and negotiate with the new government, who are certain to be more realistic and reasonable.'"

Assuming that the minister presumes that the Conservatives could possibly form the next federal government, and judging from that statement, which we presume reflects his policy, can we presume that he thinks the new federal Conservative government would allow the use of user fees by the provincial governments?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can't say what the new federal Conservative government might do, but I believe the minimum they would do is to listen, which would be a vast improvement over the existing federal government.

MRS. DAILLY: Then I am to assume that he is not intending, in his role as provincial minister, to put pressure on whoever the new government is to allow him and his ministry to continue to have the practice of user fees. Has he given us that reassurance?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not quite sure what the question was, Mr. Speaker, but it is the policy of the province of British Columbia that user fees are a legitimate part of our medicare system. While we have attempted to persuade the existing federal minister of that, and so far have been somewhat unsuccessful, some of the other provinces have attempted to persuade the federal minister of the legitimacy of user fees.

In the event of a new government in Canada after the next federal election, we certainly will attempt to persuade the new government of the legitimate concerns of the provinces and the legitimate use of user fees. We certainly have not abandoned the case that provincial jurisdiction is important and should be recognized, and that the manner in which we, have dispensed medical services over the years has been successful. We believe that user fees are a legitimate part of that service.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we know the philosophy of the Social Credit government is to impose user fees irrespective of the ability of the person to pay. I further note that in this speech of February 3 the assistant deputy minister is obviously reflecting his minister when he says that a $10 emergency fee, for example, should be no obstacle to people. It is all right for a deputy minister or an assistant or a superintendent in your ministry, who are obviously making a fairly good salary, to say that $10 means nothing. You and I know that to people out of work and people having a problem in trying to maintain their families in this recession, $10 is something.

I am making this point because I want to point out that when the new estimates come, the NDP intends to continue to question this government's arrogance in the handling of medicare in this province. I don't intend to belabour it now, because it is really ridiculous. We are asked to stand up here and do a mock debate of estimates. As far as I'm concerned, when the money is already passed it is a mockery. Leaving that until the new budget comes in so that we can see how many more impositions are going to be placed on the people of British Columbia, I want to move on to the individual votes, where we will deal with these things in detail to a very small degree.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the minister could give me a couple of answers to assist me in some statistics I am trying to collect. It has to do with children injured as a direct result of not being strapped in with seat belts, or any other form of restraint, while riding in automobiles. For the past several years I have been raising this under the vote of the minister responsible for motor vehicles, and I have been a little bit hamstrung because I haven't been able to give exact statistics as to how many children actually are involved in these accidents. I know that I can go to the Children's Hospital and ask for the Vancouver statistics, but that won't get me the statistics for the rest of the province. The only way I can get that would be through the ministry itself.

I'm wondering, first of all, whether the minister keeps statistics on children under the age of 6 who are injured — usually they are brain-damaged or have some other spinal cord injury or something — as a direct result of riding in automobiles without being in some form of restraint. If the minister does have those statistics, would he be willing to share them with me so that I'd be able to use them when the estimates for the other minister responsible for this area come up?

I have a real problem with this, Mr. Chairman, because, as the minister himself will know, as you drive around the city you are continually seeing kids sitting in the front of automobiles, standing on the back seats and climbing all over the cars while they're being driven, and I'm sure the minister shares a real concern with me about how dangerous this is. Yet we have not been able to get any legislation on the books which will insist on children under the age of 6 being restrained in one form or another. The B.C. Medical Association has released statistics, and one of their programs is to give out free car seats to various families whenever the opportunity arises. If I had those statistics I would be in a better position to deal with the other minister.

[ Page 3091 ]

I'm sorry that we're dealing with these estimates so late, because a lot of the decisions that have to be made have already been made. In September 1983 some decisions were made about cutting off funding to some community groups that dealt specifically in the area of services to women — preventive health care. I'm talking about groups like Planned Parenthood. Even though I know he's not responsible for the funding for post-partum counselling, it is a health issue. I'm wondering whether, in terms of his budget, he has thought about picking up that particular funding which has been dropped by the Ministry of Human Resources, and also re-establishing funding for groups like the Vancouver Women's Health Collective. As all of the other resources start to go by the board, we're finding that these kinds of preventive resources for women in the community, in terms of their pursuing good health, are really necessary. I wonder if the minister would give some indication as to whether this is part of his planning or is under consideration at this time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the statistics available on injuries to youngsters under 6 for want of restraint in an automobile apparently are available through ICBC. I would be pleased to have someone in the ministry try and get that information. We don't keep the information separately, but apparently it is available.

The Planned Parenthood issue, I believe, has been resolved to a very large degree through consultation between Planned Parenthood and members of the ministry. My understanding is that $114,500 in sessional payments for the clinic physicians is continuing, along with some free clinical space in our health units and other methods of payment. The people I met with from Planned Parenthood were quite receptive to working out an arrangement to provide funding in a somewhat different manner. Only the grant portion of the funding was terminated. I don't know the precise amount which has been continuing on to Planned Parenthood, but I believe the situation has been resolved to a very, very large degree.

The Vancouver Women's Health Collective grant was severed as of, I believe, September 8, 1983. That grant was not continued and is being considered for our next estimates, but in the present year it has simply not been made available to them. Some alternative forms of service have been pointed out to the people who have been involved in that.

MS. BROWN: Just a comment about post-partum counselling, which, I pointed out to the minister, I knew was not his responsibility. But now that the Ministry of Human Resources has terminated their funding, is the Ministry of Health looking at the possibility of picking it up? This is such an important resource to women.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, we have not reviewed the possibility of picking it up simply by transferring it from the Ministry of Human Resources, or of funding the program which existed previously. I know there has been some discussion with respect to how such counselling could be obtained and whether it is obtainable now through our Medical Services Plan. But specifically, no, we have not given consideration to picking up the funding which lapsed under the other ministry on a one-for-one basis.

MS. BROWN: This is my final comment. I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Health, Mr. Chairman, that they should look at this, because it is a very viable resource. We are already beginning to feel the impact of its disappearance,

Also, I notice that his special-care services grant has been cut by $1 million. As he knows, that includes the grant which covers Planned Parenthood and the Women's Health Collective. That particular grant certainly needs some beefing up.

Vote 44 approved.

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

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

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

As an addendum under post-partum counselling, it strikes me that if I heard the minister's reply that maybe something under the Medical Services Commission could be implemented, then holy doodle, we are really spending money, because if you start getting psychiatrists into postpartum counselling — with all the respect that I can muster for my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) — it's going to be a pretty expensive. Maybe they need the counselling, but I don't want them to do the counselling. This is what I'm trying to get across. It strikes me that the people to do the counselling are the people who have been doing the counselling in the past, and I'll tell you it's relatively inexpensive. These are people who have gone through the problems and the depressions and are far better equipped, in my view, to provide that kind of service than are psychiatrists at whatever dollars an hour that might cost. So I would add this just as an addendum.

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

[2:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's our desire to develop a method whereby we would be containing the billing numbers for what we refer to as "over-doctored areas": Victoria, Vancouver and the Okanagan. We have local manpower committees which review each application and are working with the BCMA and others in developing a method of approval. We're also considering the possibility of requiring hospital privileges to be tied in with the billing number being offered to a new applicant. We have some technical difficulties, according to our constitutional lawyers, with respect to the limiting of billing numbers. We feel that we do have the jurisdictional authority to limit the numbers, but we're still trying to work out the precise details as to how that may be done to prevent challenges under the constitution. I think it is fair to say that the British Columbia Medical Association agree in principle that we must contain the number of billing numbers in certain areas of the province. We are not attempting to deny services that are required in certain areas of the province, but we feel, after reviewing statistics across the country, that indeed certain areas of British Columbia are over-doctored. I think we are nearly in agreement in principle with those who are involved, particularly the BCMA, in establishing a program whereby the review would permit us to deny access to certain individuals to practise in certain areas of the province. We have not been able to wrap it up

[ Page 3092 ]

completely. We do not have the system firmly in place which would deny access to those who make application. We believe, however, that we are not far from achieving it, and we hope that it will be a fact of life in a relatively short time.

MR. COCKE: Let me see if I can interpret for the minister. I thought that was very skilful stickhandling. What he said was in fact "not really, but maybe someday" and so on, and "right now we're studying it." I'm not going to take a position on this, other than that it has been brought to my attention that some people are now saying that family practitioners are unable to secure a billing number, and so it strikes me that the way you're able to do it is by saying: "Look, we're studying this proposition, and until such time as our study is complete we have no billing numbers available." Is that true? It may be that we are de facto doing it, but we're not really doing it in a hostile way so as to attract the attention of those interested in the constitution.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If the member for New Westminster were correct, that probably would be a skilful way of doing it. One of the criteria we have attempted to establish is the availability of hospital privileges in an area. My understanding is that some applicants have been unable to secure such hospital privileges and that it has had an impact on receiving billing numbers. But, Mr. Chairman, we certainly intend to pursue this issue of billing numbers, because I believe our analysis indicates without much opposition that we are overdoctored in certain areas of the province. I think it's important for members to know that it is not our belief that limiting numbers in one area will automatically mean more doctors are available in other areas of the province. It may mean there could be fewer applicants from outside British Columbia for such privileges. We believe we will have a system in place fairly quickly. We also have reason to believe we may require specific legislative authority. That is still being reviewed by those who have been asked to provide us with an answer.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a further couple of questions on billing numbers. What security can the minister offer to young interns and young people who are planning to enrol in our own college here? If the billing numbers are in the hands of the doctors presently practising and some members of the minister's staff, what security do they have that they're going to have an opportunity to get a billing number?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The method and system hasn't been developed completely. I would think that those who graduate from our medical classes at university have every reason to believe they'll have the opportunity of practising in the province. There may be some particular advantage to the local graduates with respect to obtaining a billing number. That could be one of the considerations by the local manpower committee, for obtaining such a number. I couldn't guarantee that the graduates of the University of B.C. medical school will be able to immediately receive a billing number to practise in the greater Vancouver, greater Victoria or Okanagan areas. I'm not suggesting that they would be prohibited from practising in those areas, but it is not necessarily taken that they would have no opposition at all. It could be that some of the graduates from our university will find that to obtain a billing number they may have to practise, for a period of time at least, in an area other than those three I mentioned. I don't think it will discourage the development of the doctors at UBC; I think it is part of an overall package we must somehow develop in the province. We must recognize, in my opinion, that we simply cannot afford the overdoctoring situation we have in certain areas. Working with the Dean of Medicine at UBC and with the BCMA, I think we can advise our young students and those who complete their studies that they'll have an excellent opportunity of practising in the province and perhaps within a reasonable period of time in the community of their choice.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to ask the minister what happens under your plan when a physician retires and he sells his practice. Is the billing number up for sale, too?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not according to our desires or plan. The BCMA has not totally embraced that idea as yet. I believe that under a proper system the individual physician should be licensed to bill, and when the individual physician decides to retire, transfer or move, the billing number should in itself be retired. We are resisting the desires of the BCMA to transfer the number. It will require some adjustment, because there have been occasions where physicians felt that they had counted on this as part of their retirement, or they may at some time have invested in such a number. But I think we can overcome that over a period of time. Our principle is that the numbers would be individually assigned, and they lapse when they are no longer being used by the individual.

MS. BROWN: I hope that the minister really digs his heel in on that, because we certainly don't want it to become like the taxi licences. I know that the old myth exists about building up goodwill and selling it when you retire, and retiring to the Bahamas or something based on selling your goodwill along with your practice.

But that's not the reason I stood up. I'm wondering if there is any way at all that the minister has of monitoring whether young graduates, not with a general practice but with a specialty, do get a billing number after they graduate. I want to speak specifically about one particular group that I'm familiar with, the young students in psychiatry. It wasn't that many of them who graduated to start with — about seven, I think, from British Columbia. The last time I met with them — I see somebody nodding heads with someone; maybe it has changed by now — most of those students had not yet received their billing numbers. What we're dealing with — and I can speak from experience, having been married to someone who was once a student in psychiatry — is that by the time they graduate they are up to their necks in debt. There is absolutely no way they can sit around for six months or a year waiting to get a billing number so they can start paying off the bank, the university and everyone else. I wonder if the minister can tell me, for example, what is the very longest time that those young graduates would have to wait before they could in fact start practising, before they would have their billing number. What kind of monitoring is there in the system to see to it that by the time they have completed their specialty and got the results of their orals they can get their billing number and be able to start working right away?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate responding to that with very specific information, perhaps a bit later. I'm advised that the average period before a billing

[ Page 3093 ]

number is approved is about two months. But I'll have to look into it for the psychiatric students specifically, to go back over the past while to see what the situation has been. It hasn't been brought to my attention that there is a particular problem, but I'll be very pleased to look into the details of that.

MS. BROWN: I just want to add, Mr. Chairman, that two months is too long. That means that their spouses have got to put in that extra two months supporting them. To heck with that!

Vote 46 approved.

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

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of quick constituency questions for the minister. First, I'd like to say that this is the first time in five years that we haven't had to discuss Dease Lake. We've got that finished — congratulations. That's a pat on the back there.

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

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

There are a couple of constituency problems. The first one is the Nishga health centre at New Aiyansh. What is the provincial input into the Nishga health centre in money? Is the province putting up 20 percent of the cost, 40 percent or what? The second question is: what is the status of the health centre complex? Has the ministry approved certain regulations regarding the health centre itself? There must be some type of input by the Ministry of Health in regard to the Nishga health centre. The third question is: has the provincial government endorsed the idea of the Nishga health centre? I know, as the minister understood when he was there, the importance of the Nishga health centre for the area of New Aiyansh — the entire Nass Valley — and the need for this health centre, instead of driving on those terrible roads to go down to Terrace to get some type of health care.

The last question I have to the minister is in regard to public health in rural communities. The program is in existence, bringing in surgeons and doctors to the north from the south. Dease Lake is a perfect example of how this works. One suggestion I would like to make to the minister — and maybe he can add to this.... What type of additional funding is going toward the travelling of these public health nurses? For instance, people in Cassiar have to travel out to Good Hope Lake...or up and down the Cassiar road to hit some of the small centres. Additional funding is needed for transportation so the public health nurses can move around a little bit more.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that funds for travel are inhibiting the public health nurses. I think that's pretty much under control.

The New Aiyansh situation is quite interesting because, in speaking with the representatives of the Nishga, we received correspondence from them saying that the federal government had agreed to certain things and were ready to go. I spoke with the representative of the Nishga to say: "Could you provide the federal government's correspondence on that, rather than your interpretation of what they were going to do?" This has taken some period of time. We have agreed in principle to the D and T centre and whatever else.... We haven't developed a precise formula on percentages yet, because my understanding is that we are still awaiting the federal government's commitment to what they would fund. We've been asking for some time what precisely they will commit themselves to, rather than just a simple statement that they will be funding. We've asked them: "What is it you are going to fund?" I'm not sure what the percentages might be, but we have told the Nishga and the federal government that we are prepared to share with them the costs of such a centre. The federal government would be responsible for services other than health, if they wished to expand the centre to include social services and other aspects. We would be involved with the health component of that.

[3:00]

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have yet received a firm figure from the federal government. I know we've been in contact with them for some time — I believe the last contact was Friday last — trying to get them to come up with some firm numbers so we could continue on, but the project has been approved in principle. We now await some firm commitment from the federal government as to what percentage they intend to fund so we can respond to that. The project is in line for development for, I believe, 1985-86, so we still have a reasonable period of time. We haven't yet been able to tie up those loose ends. We are pursuing it with some vigour.

Vote 47 approved.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we find emergency health services under vote 48, and I would like to direct the minister's attention to air ambulance. It's been brought to my attention that Aero Control Ltd. in Richmond have been attempting to make some inroads into the air ambulance service. They tell me that they're the only air ambulance carrier in the province that is licensed by the Canadian Transport Commission. It strikes me that the minister, who is interested in all these private enterprise firms, might have some answers as to whether or not the only.... I notice that there is an appeal by that company to the Canadian Transport Commission, and the appeal has to be answered within 30 days. In terms of their treatment here in the province, I am just asking the minister whether it has been brought to his attention yet that these people have been rather sitting on their hands with some, I think, exceptionally good equipment for the transport of people who are ill. I just wonder what the minister knows about this situation and whether he is at all interested in Acro Control Ltd. and their Commander jet-props.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been briefed on this one specifically in the last few weeks, although we were keeping an almost daily monitor for some time. There have been a series of difficulties associated with the application — if indeed it is an application — not the least of which is the matter of which number of licence this particular operator has. I believe it's an argument whether

[ Page 3094 ]

they're licensed, a number 4 or a number 7 and which allows the transport of patients. But in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I've spoken to the principals, and one of the major problems I had in dealing with this as Minister of Health and also as the MLA for the area was the bit of musical chairs with respect to the principals. On one day in one week we received a telephone call or correspondence from one gentleman, and we were advised the next day to disregard that because there had been a change in principals. We were then advised the next day that the person to whom we were speaking had been relieved of his position, and it was back to the original principal. I know that emergency health had reviewed the application and had expressed some concern about what they deemed to be some instability at the principal level.

What has happened over the past couple of weeks, I am not completely familiar with. I know that there have been a tremendous number of questions raised about this, and it is still under consideration — whether appeals are underway or not. I do know that the emergency branch has been in touch with the federal government over the licensing, and if indeed the organization has the correct licences and if their organization is stable enough to satisfy the director, I would think there would really be few problems in making use of their aircraft, if indeed they have possession of that aircraft. So it's a matter of working out some of those problems. I just don't have the up-to-date information as to what the situation may be at this moment, but I'll be pleased to try to find out where it is at.

MR. COCKE: I can't comment at all, of course, on the corporate stability of this group. However, having talked to one or two of them, and to others, I am persuaded that the particular aircraft they propose is one this province should be very seriously considering. As far as I am concerned, it has all of the qualities that are really required for any fixed-wing medivac — or virtually all fixed-wing medivacs — in terms of the size of the doors, and getting patients in and out; so capacity is one thing. In terms of the short-distance takeoff and landing, it can handle almost any airstrip in the province and yet it's fast. So I hope the minister will be taking a good firm look at this particular kind of aircraft, in any event.

One of the problems by now, I'm sure, is that some of the aircraft in our government air service are somewhat — well, a bit archaic. Not archaic, particularly, but I would say they are good used aircraft and might be better used for some other less-intensive service than the one we have to deal with from time to time. I suppose the King Airs are good for a while, but I know that those speedy little jets are something people are beginning to talk about in terms of concern.

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

MS. DAILLY: Following along on air ambulances, when the government fleet cannot be used and you need to get an adjunct from a private company to pick up someone with an emergency health problem somewhere in the province, how is it decided which airplane company gets the government contract to fly the injured person or persons?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Emergency Health Services has a list of companies that have aircraft available, and it's based on a first availability from the list. If a government aircraft isn't available, they'll start making contact with those persons on the list, and the first available aircraft in any area will be utilized.

MS. DAILLY: The reason I'm asking, Mr. Chairman — of course, it's unconfirmed and I just want to throw it out to the minister — is that there's a concern that whoever operates out of Victoria seems to be getting most of the requests when there are people in the lower mainland who could also be used. I do not have the particulars on that, but I would hope, whatever system is used, that it would be a fair system. That's my main concern.

Vote 48 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

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

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, if you'll permit me, just a few brief remarks before I entertain the recommendations and questions of the members opposite.

The Ministry of Agriculture in the current fiscal year.... It's a little difficult fielding the estimates for the first time, Mr. Chairman, and fielding them so late in the fiscal year. It makes it a little difficult. I hope I won't be saying "was" too often. In any event, the ministry in this fiscal year has fared exceptionally well when we compare our fiscal position with that of any other agricultural ministry across Canada, or when we compare our ministry with the other ministries within the province of British Columbia. This has not been a good year to be in government. I would have loved to have come to the ministry and announced many different kinds of new programs, but at a time when you are asked to find savings, when you are asked to exercise greater efficiencies, it becomes virtually impossible to bring together new programs. It is even difficult to bring some new direction to the ministry. But I think it needs to be said that if we reflect for a few moments on the stability of the ministry itself — no, I shouldn't say of the ministry, but the stability of the industry — it has fared very well in this fiscal year. The budgetary provisions are some 13.5 percent above those for the previous fiscal year.

It should be noted that the increase in dollars available was not spread evenly and equally across the ministry. It couldn't possibly be done that way, because there were some areas that were in dire straits, in crying need, and those were the financial assistance programs. I think that it should be said to many of my colleagues who are listening, I hope, that some of those financial assistance programs were first introduced when the party now in opposition was government. I think that they should be commended on the foresight, if that's indeed what it was, which provided for stability and took some of the economic troughs out of the industry. I am delighted to have been able to have been associated with a government who found themselves able to have a strong commitment toward a continuation of that kind of program.

In tree fruits 1982 was a critical crop year. It was a critical production year in livestock, in the beef industry. As a result, the draw on the insurance fund of the farm income insurance program would have been unbearable if it hadn't been for the deposits there, which, although they were sizeable, were still not sufficient. Some of those plans are in a serious deficit position, even in this year. The government was able to be

[ Page 3095 ]

convinced — and it feels good to be able to say that — that this was the kind of program that needed an influx of funds this year. That is really the reason why the budget for the current fiscal year is sizeably larger than in the previous fiscal year.

I think the industry itself is quick to recognize this, and, as a result, at a time when every other industry is suffering the pinch economically, our industry has felt that same impact and yet is relatively content. They have learned to accept ups and downs in years gone by, and recognize that this year those ups and downs are not as pronounced as they could have been. As a result, it is a delight to be able to go out and speak with the farming communities and listen to them dream and think in terms of better years ahead. They have not been devastated.

I know that bankruptcy figures should not be any indicator at all. Yet it's worthwhile to notice that although the bankruptcy level in the farm industry across Canada has been far greater than it ought to have been, in British Columbia we have escaped, not totally but to a large degree, the effect of bankruptcies, and I think it has been because of a strong commitment on behalf of this government to support the stabilization programs.

[3:15]

There are smaller programs which have had to make a contribution in a year in which there were not enough dollars. They have had to wait for another year. Let me give you an example: one of the programs was the weed program. We have a knapweed problem in the province which is ongoing, and unless it was kept in check the weed would eventually gain control over the land. The program this year could not possibly be supported at the same level as in previous years and still spare the dollars for the more serious programs. As a result, what happened is that the number of dollars made available were curtailed. But in consultation with industry the ministry went out and said: "If we could at least guarantee the same volume of chemical which we normally spray on the weed, would the industry then find some other way to have it sprayed and distributed, rather than to have it done through ministry personnel?" They found a way. One thing about the agriculture people: they are innovative. They found a way, and as a result, even though the dollars were seriously curtailed, the amount of chemical was not curtailed at all; as a matter of fact, a greater number of gallons of chemical were made available, and hence the overall effect — the final result — was not impeded. I was delighted that it was an example of a working relationship between the ministry and the industry themselves so that we could meet our eventual goals by working together.

The new direction which I had sought to bring to the ministry revolved around the awareness of marketing and management. A farm unit is no longer a parcel of land which hasn't been used for anything else and has a small residence on one corner and perhaps a barn and a few stanchions. That concept of farming is passe. It's from yesteryear. If you have a production unit in farming now, that production unit may well be in excess of $1 million in capital investment. As a result, fanning is now the kind of industry in which individually a farmer must avail himself of management tools. It was an ambition of mine to introduce that particular phase to the industry. We have had one major management seminar in which the subscription was overwhelming. We expected and made provision for about 200. In round figures, 300 came to register for the seminar; hence you can see the interest in the question of management on the farm.

The other area was an awareness of the sale — the marketing of the product. As you know, we have under my ministry several marketing agencies, marketing boards and marketing commissions. It became of concern to me that many times these commissions were concerned with the control of production — which they should be — and with the control of orderly production. But as such, I noticed that they were considering last year's consumption and curtailing next year's production to that level, instead of having a concern about expanding the consumption of that product. I think that it's excusable, because a farmer is concerned about trying to gather enough capital to put a unit into operation and then about the planting, pest control and a hundred other things. He seldom thinks beyond the farm gate. If he can get his product out of the farm gate and loaded onto someone else who will carry it in inventory and carry it as far as the responsibility for bringing it to the consumer, then he has seen his job done. What I've asked is that every commodity group and every segment of that industry be concerned about the eventual consumption of that product. It is already beginning to bear results in the industry. We had another seminar that brought together the four segments: the producer, the processor, the wholesaler, the distributor and the eventual retailer. We brought them all together to look at how better we can increase consumption of those products that we produce down on the farm.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

With those few brief words, I think that I have outlined the constraints that we have felt, the ambitions we have for the industry and the stability of the industry. I would be very interested to hear some questions and suggestions, which I would love to entertain.

MS. SANFORD: It's a little late for suggestions. We are in February, and in March the money that is included in this budget will presumably be expended, and we will have a new budget. So suggestions are a bit late, but I do have some questions and some general comments with respect to agriculture.

I was pleased to note that the minister extended a compliment to the former Minister of Agriculture during the NDP regime, the member....

Interjection.

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

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

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

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) certainly did have the foresight to appreciate what agriculture was all about, to understand the value of agriculture in our economy in British Columbia and to bring in the measures that the minister referred to today. If those particular programs — particularly the farm income assurance program — had not been introduced by the member for Nanaimo when he served as Minister of Agriculture, I think that we would see the industry in a much more difficult position than it's in right

[ Page 3096 ]

now. I too would like to join this minister in complimenting the foresight of the NDP government and in particular the member for Nanaimo for introducing these programs which, although it's difficult for the industry to survive today, it would be impossible for them to survive without those programs in place. We would not have seen those programs introduced at this time. This government brags about its commitment to agriculture, but what it's doing is simply continuing the program that was introduced and initiated by the member for Nanaimo. I am absolutely convinced that they would not ever have moved to bring about a farm income assurance program or, for that matter, an agricultural land reserve in this province. Government, it seems to me, in order to ensure the survival of the agricultural industry in this province, has that twofold responsibility. One is to ensure that the land which is capable of producing food remains in that agricultural land reserve, and I have a great deal of concern about the preservation of agricultural land under this particular government.

As recently as question period today, I was asking the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) about a statement that he made up in Fort St. John about taking all of the land in that northeastern part of the province out of the agricultural land reserve and he admitted to the Legislature today that it is an issue that has been discussed among his colleagues.... To witness in this House the applause afforded that minister when he stated that he feels that land should come out of the ALR makes me worried — more worried than I already was, Mr. Chairman — about the preservation of agricultural land in this province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) applauded on his desk; he wants the land in his particular constituency that is now in the ALR out of the ALR. That was very clear to me. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) applauded on his desk. It was clear to me that he wants the land in the northern part of the province out of the ALR.

This present minister would not even give the Legislature a clear statement about his position as the minister responsible for agriculture and food in this province — whether or not he concurs with the statement. He indicated to the Legislature that the policy remains — and I know the policy remains; he doesn't have to tell me that. What I want to know is: where does this government stand with respect to agricultural land in this province? To me it is absolutely crucial that we retain the remaining small bit of the province that is capable of producing food in the agricultural land reserve. It is essential; it is crucial. When you hear members of cabinet openly speaking out against the preservation of agricultural land in some areas of this province, then you know why I am particularly concerned about future food production in this province.

There is only about 5 percent of the land in all of B.C. that is capable of producing food. If you people are going to continue to succumb to the kinds of pressures that come from developers — and we know that the developers have had a great influence with the members of this government, Mr. Chairman — then I will do everything that I can to oppose any move by this government to further erode the agricultural land reserve.

The government made some moves a few years ago. They decided that they could overrule the Land Commission with respect to keeping land in the ALR, where it belongs. We've had some excellent farmland removed from the agricultural land reserve as a result of that kind of pressure, and as a result of the ability of this government to overrule the Land Commission. I think it's a grave error. I'm worried about the friends of government applying that kind of pressure to have even more land taken out, and secondly, having areas of the province excluded from the jurisdiction of the Land Commission.

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

[3:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, you are not in the chair very frequently. One thing that I should make you aware of is that people usually do not pay much attention during the debate on the estimated expenditures of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's a very important industry.

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

MS. SANFORD: What did you say about the marketing boards? We know that a lot of people over there don't support marketing boards, Mr. Chairman. Is that what the minister is referring to?

It's typical, and I think that the minister will agree with me. I know that this was mentioned last year as well. As I am saying, this Legislature and the topic generally is not one that grabs the attention. I notice the press is not that interested in either what I have to say or what the minister had to say.

Interjections.

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

I think that I have to point out again to the members of government, and in particular to the Minister of Agriculture, the very dangerous course they are on when they talk about taking increasing pieces of land out of the ALR.

I'm very worried about what is going to happen to the excellent farmland which is known as Colony Farm. I think that the minister and the government made a serious error in selling the farm in the first place, and I am particularly disappointed in the minister's comments about the number of people who were involved in making that farm a success compared to some of the other privately owned farms in that area. That farm has been under government control for I don't know how many years and has been totally neglected by government. The equipment has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and modern methods of agriculture were not adopted at that farm. For the minister to criticize the operation of the farm when in fact the government has not been prepared to put in money to upgrade it indicates to me that the minister should not be critical of the operation of that farm. As a matter of fact, I think that the manager they had in place when the farm was finally dismantled did an excellent job, with the equipment and with the authority he had. For the minister to suggest that the farm was badly run because it required a lot of labour to run it is a statement that minister should not be making. It was the fault of government, who over the years neglected to upgrade the farm and to make it a viable unit as the other farms in the area were and are.

[ Page 3097 ]

That land is located next to an industrial park at this moment. I know that the land is going to be put up for sale. I believe it is going to be sold in two blocks, although there are a number of one-acre subdivisions that already exist on one of the blocks of the Colony Farm. Because they are located next to the river, I am assuming that there will be no building — no development — on those one-acre lots because of the floodplain provisions that now exist.

It is a philosophy that this government has adopted that they are determined to sell as much as they possibly can. I know that they are strapped financially, and I know that they are looking for every penny that they can, but to undertake the sale of Colony Farm, which has served the province so well in providing a place where some of the residents from the psychiatric unit could work, and in supplying dairy products to the Riverview area and other facilities, I think is a great mistake. If this government is interested in agriculture and says that they promote and support agriculture and brag about it, then that land should have been turned over to the University of British Columbia as a research station easily accessible to the students who are currently registered at the university in the faculty of agriculture. But oh, no. The cattle have been sold, the land has been turned over to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and it will be sold.

If there is a commitment, then it should be in the area of research, in order to improve our industry in this province — not to sell in order to raise a few much-needed dollars for the treasury at this time.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to recommend and in fact to insist that the land which is going to be put up for sale, now controlled by B.C. Buildings Corporation, formerly Colony Farm, have a restrictive covenant placed on it to ensure that it will not come out of the agricultural land reserve. That's possible. B.C. Buildings Corporation, which at the moment owns the land, could ensure that a restrictive covenant is placed when it's sold so that it is impossible for future owners of that property even to make application to have it come out of the agricultural land reserve. That land is so valuable that there is going to be pressure, no doubt because it is located next to an industrial park at this moment, to have it taken out of the ALR. The Land Commission could turn it down, but I've no confidence that the cabinet would turn down a direct request to have Colony Farm removed from the agricultural land reserve. The minister I think has indicated that he hopes it will stay in the agricultural land reserve, or that he expects it will, but could he please give a commitment to this Legislature and to the people of this province that a restrictive covenant will be placed on the land before it is sold to ensure that it remains in agricultural production in perpetuity?

There's one other comment that I'd like to make. I'm not going to go through the figures with respect to what's happening to agricultural land in the areas that we now depend on for food imports; I'm going to leave that for today. But something I would like to point out to the Legislature, and to the public generally, is that a major cut within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was the one made to the Land Commission. It's going to be difficult for the Land Commission to carry on its work as it has done. I understand that one of the soil specialists is now gone; a planner is gone, as are a planning assistant, a draughting technician and a clerical employee. These are people who served the Land Commission and assisted in ensuring that the land remained within the ALR, and also assisted in terms of educating the public. I hope they educate this Social Credit caucus about the need to preserve that land for food production. The Land Commission itself will not be able to meet as often, and I assume they have not met as often during the ten months that these estimates have been in effect. As a result, there will not be the liaison with local government that the Land Commission certainly should have if we're serious about protecting the agricultural land.

I would like to ask the minister as well about coverage under the Workers' Compensation Board for farmworkers. We are all aware that there was a decision last year that the regulations under the Workers' Compensation Board would not be extended to farmworkers; instead, a safety committee would be established, and safety procedures would be adopted through that committee. I think the committee has done an effective job in trying to educate farmers. I know that some of the farmers within my own constituency indicated that they attended a seminar, I assume at the WCB centre at Richmond, and they themselves, as a result of attending that seminar, were making changes on the farm which in fact made their operation safer — things they had never thought about before, and things that would not have entered their heads unless they had had the opportunity to attend. A number of farmers are going to benefit from that procedure, including the one I talked to in my constituency. He is willing to undertake the changes and to follow the recommendations that were presented to him at the seminar.

But there is no doubt in my mind that those regulations need to be extended to cover the farmworkers of the province if we're going to have a safe-as-possible farm operation in British Columbia. We cannot expect people to comply, because we know it doesn't work. It works in many cases, and may work in most cases, but there will be some who will not comply unless there are actually regulations that extend to the farms and unless those regulations are adhered to. There are inspectors and we have the whole procedure that applies to the rest of the industries of the province. I understand why farmers were reluctant to have the regulations extend to them. They felt that they would have some snoopy Workers' Compensation Board inspector coming around and telling them what to do every time they turned around. But I think they are now beginning to understand what the regulations are about and what can be done through the Workers' Compensation Board. They are still reluctant to accept those regulations — I'm aware of that — but I think there is a better understanding today than there was a year ago.

I would like to pose a question to the minister about the extension of the regulations to farmworkers. I know that this is done under the Ministry of Labour, but I also know that the minister is involved in the consultation on the coverage of Workers' Compensation Board regulations to farmworkers.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The safety committees have done a lot. There is no doubt about that, but it's not good enough. I think that those Workers' Compensation Board regulations do have to be extended, and I would like to have the minister give us that assurance.

[3:45]

The oyster industry is now, at least in part, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. You may be aware, Mr. Chairman, that Baynes Sound area near Courtenay is one of the best oyster-growing areas in the world. The oyster

[ Page 3098 ]

growers up in that area would very much like to be totally covered under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, not just partially covered. Right now there is a conflict of jurisdiction, because they have to get their leases through the lands branch, they have to deal with marine resources through the Ministry of Environment and they are covered in part under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister had discussions with the other ministries about assuming the total jurisdiction? I know it would certainly make a difference in terms of the operation of the various oyster growers in my area.

They are currently faced, which I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture and Food would not approve of, with an increase of 300 percent in their leases through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. If we're going to have a viable industry there, I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food is the one who should be directly involved in putting those kinds of costs on the leases for oyster growers. The government is trying to get money every which way it can, Mr. Chairman, and they are imposing user fees and charges of almost every kind everywhere, but a 300 percent increase in the oyster leases is not going to assist the oyster industry in this province. I would like the minister to make a comment on that. Even though the oyster industry is now under his ministry, he may not even be aware of the proposed 300 percent increase. I don't think it has happened yet, but it has been proposed.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks I would like to give the minister an opportunity to respond to some of the issues I have raised.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the member expresses concern in a few areas. I took note of them as I went along. One of them primarily had to do with the agricultural land reserve. She spoke of it in two segments, and I'll put both segments together and try to address her questions.

From a policy of government point of view, what I said earlier today in question period I said in all sincerity. I was not trying to avoid a question or trying to conceal information from the House. It's not my way of doing things. I was very, very sincere in saying that the policy of government has not changed with regard to the agricultural land reserve.

MS. SANFORD: I know that.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: We are all very much aware that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve are not carved in stone. We know that fine-tuning is a program which is continuing and will continue. Therefore there will be land that is in the agricultural land reserve today which ten years from now may not be in the land reserve, but it is my direction that there will also be land that is not now in the land reserve which will be. We are on a constant search for the redrafting of the boundaries, not because we don't have any respect for the boundaries where they are now but only because the boundaries were drafted rather quickly, as you will recall. I don't know how any of us, in our finite fashion, were going to divine exactly where those boundaries would be, and there are errors and they will continue to be corrected. But I have a goal. I don't know whether I can achieve it or not, but you know you can't achieve anything if you don't establish some goals. The goals are these: during my time in this ministry I would like not to have a shrinkage in the number of hectares in the land reserve, which means that I want to find as many new acres as there are acres released. I think that we should not put our head in the sand and say that there is only one use for land. I think that we would all agree that we not only have to eat but also have to wear something and have a place to live. We do not have closed boundaries. We cannot say to people: "You do not and cannot live in British Columbia. We all chose to live here, but you can't." Therefore there are other uses for land, and I think that as long as we are here there will be conflicts among these uses. What we must do is ensure that we have a rational plan for all uses. I think the production of food should be among the highest.

I was recently in Holland and watched what they were doing with their land. Technology is moving to a point where a much greater volume of the food is being produced under glass. If that technology moves as well to British Columbia, more efficient food production may well be under glass. It's not there now. Ten years ago it wasn't even evident that it would be there to the degree that it's there today. The technology is changing. I think that along with that change we should be willing to look at our goals and rationalize our boundaries, whether they be of the ALR or of any other description, so that on an ongoing basis we have a reasonable and rational look at life in the province. When the member suggested that there should be covenant on the land, particularly the land in Colony Farm, I think the member was right. But I don't know of a stronger covenant that I could place on those 746 acres than to have them in the agricultural land reserve. That is the strongest covenant there is.

MS. SANFORD: Cabinet has taken it out.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I don't know how in the world you could register anything against a title which would exercise a greater force. In addition to the covenant of the reserve of the PALC — the agricultural land reserve — we have the local zoning of the local government, which by the way, in my humble opinion, should also have something to say about the use of that land. As a result they have a double covenant. It's in the ALR and is zoned locally, as I understand it, both by the district of Coquitlam and by the district of Port Coquitlam.

MS. SANFORD: They opposed the sale.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It has been zoned agricultural. I feel quite secure with those two very strong reserves — stronger than any covenant.

MS. SANFORD: Not with that government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Please remember that the recommendation of this ministry to that agency which has the responsibility for that land today was that it be retained in the agricultural land reserve. It should also be recognized that the land is held in some 36 different parcels, and if it's to be sold in two parcels, it must first go through some rationalization and amalgamation process whereby it can be put into two logical pieces of property, but if they were two of approximately equal acreage, they'd still be in the neighbourhood of 350 acres. Three hundred and fifty acres may or may not be a viable, workable farm unit at that location. It depends entirely upon what form of food production will take place on those 746 acres. Nonetheless, I share her concern that it should be kept for food production.

[ Page 3099 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I would like now to turn my remarks to her fears about the Colony Farm. Why was the decision made to sell the stock, the dairy production herd and, eventually, the land itself? I think part of the answer was in your own suggestion. The farm had been incorporated years and years ago. I walked through the farm to see the state of the art on Colony Farm. The cattle were held in holding barns and stanchions, and when it came milking time, those cattle were herded through to a milking parlour. The cost of producing the product there was such that it wasn't even fulfilling the need of the institution to which this production was originally directed. They couldn't afford to buy the milk for the cost that was incurred in producing it. The efficiency on the farm — and this is no criticism of the people who worked there.... I met the people who worked there. They were grand people, who in some instances had spent most of their lives on Colony Farm, had watched very carefully the development of that herd, and whose hearts were really in it. I sat down with them and said: "Hey, man, you've done a good job with the herd." He said that at least the herd was not going to be dispensed with; it was going to be dispersed. We will have the entire province of British Columbia reap the benefits of years and years of work with that herd. I could empathize with him; I knew exactly how he felt. I'm a guy who likes to retain things — I collect model-T Fords. I was not critical of the people who were on Colony Farm, but I had to make a decision based on some hard facts.

The hard facts were that the farm had not, on a commercial basis, produced its product at a price which, even at wholesale value, could be afforded by the institutions. As a result, for years it lost money. The managers of the farm had finally turned the thing around by divesting the hog herd; the sheep operation followed later. They had rationalized the costs of the farm to the point where in the last fiscal year, I think, if we didn't take capital costs into consideration, we did just a little better than break even.

While we were looking at rationalizing, deinstitutionalizing and privatizing the farm, it seemed far better to make the plus factors of that farm available to the rest of the dairymen of the province, to allow the milk quota to go back to the Milk Board and the industry to take up whatever slack in production might be represented by the dispersing of the farm. I think that it was a logical way to go. Those decisions had to be based on some hard facts. Hence Colony Farm.

You had one other concern: the oyster farm. Oyster farming is an interministry concern, and not just within the province. As soon as you get below the high-water tide level on any of our shores, the federal people are also involved. We do have an oyster industry which has a marketing board which comes under the umbrella of the food segment of my ministry. We are delighted to have them there. We will act as advocates for them, although we recognize our limitations. Environment, who have been given the responsibility of foreshore leases, will continue to have jurisdiction over those. We recognize that we will have to sit down together — however many of us have jurisdiction — and come to the reasonable conclusion that these leases must be made available to these oyster growers in an affordable plan. The fact that there is some kind of a forecast that these leases may increase by as much as 300 percent doesn't necessarily mean that those percentages are cast in concrete. They are negotiable, but they are an indicator of what the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has taken for a guideline for its other leasing programs. There is an assessment of the value of the land, and, as closely as possible, those leases are made available on the basis an assessment of the actual value. In farmland those increases looked overwhelming. At the insistence of our ministry, and the good guys who work with me in the ministry, we were able to negotiate a plan whereby those increases are worked in on a gradual basis. I am sure that something like that might also be considered for the oyster growers.

I think I've answered all your questions.

[4:00]

MR. PASSARELL: I was encouraged to hear the minister's statements regarding the "soft" technology in regard to food production with greenhouse, of which he gained firsthand knowledge in Holland. I don't know whether the minister has ever travelled in the far north, but we do have a problem there in receiving fresh fruit and vegetables, as everything has to be trucked in from the south.

Some individuals in the far north have written to the minister and the government over the last year regarding using the soft technology to grow fresh vegetables in the far north by warm springs and hot springs, which are right across the north. I know one individual personally who was denied any type of funding because it didn't fall under the category of a major producer. The individual was told to go to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development to receive funding for new technology. What I would like the minister to do is to specifically look into the use of hot springs and warm springs in the far north to grow vegetables for the residents up there and if there could be some funding on a small level — not of major producers, because you are talking about communities of one hundred to two hundred people. They've been denied the funding because they don't have the large systems, and they've been referred to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. Could the minister make some positive suggestions on how these individuals could gain funding and start programs which would help the residents in the far north with food production?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a good suggestion. I wish the member would give me a little while to consider it and see whether or not it is a feasible thing to do. I don't believe that it would be feasible, for instance, to have an investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars to have a food-producing unit to feed 100 people. But I would certainly like to look at it.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments on a number of topics.

I was very interested in what the minister had to say, and I'm certain that he's sincere in his best wishes for the future of agriculture generally, and Colony Farm in particular, and all the rest of it. I don't doubt that at all. But he pointed to the lack of efficiency of Colony Farm, and I point out to him that his government has been in power for the last ten years, and if there was a problem with Colony Farm and its lack of upgrading and updating so it could meet its milk quota and produce efficiently, then I think that he should look in the mirror to find out who the culprit was who allowed this to happen. I was going to say while he's shaving, but I would have to amend that since he doesn't anymore.

[ Page 3100 ]

Anyway, I'd like him to acknowledge that. The Colony Farm's efficiency was allowed to erode. It's a little bit like the CPR and the passenger service. If you run the trains late enough and dirty enough and you charge enough, nobody is going to ride on the damn things and you can say: "Nobody wants passenger service any more." Okay. The same thing happens here. The buildings are allowed to decay, the drainage is allowed to go downhill, there's not modern equipment for milking and all the rest of it, and you say: "Well, it's no damn good any more. It's not very efficient." The people directly responsible for Colony Farm are a combination of the Ministry of Agriculture and the department of health and welfare. So I'd like to make that point. I don't really think I need to repeat it. I think it's a fact.

Another fact is.... I shouldn't say it's a fact — a projection. Colony Farm, as the minister admitted, was an enterprise, in spite of the fact that it was old-fashioned and had been underfunded and wasn't brought up to date and was poorly managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and allowed to get behind. The fact is that they had projected a net surplus, on cost terms alone, of some $55,000 for that facility for next year. That doesn't mean that because it was projected we would actually get there. But it wasn't a big cost item. It wasn't a heavy drain on the government at all. Sure, the government can recapture some money if it sells the thing, but by selling out the whole province you can recapture a lot of money too. You can use that argument any way. The argument that hasn't been used is the cost of the therapeutic benefits. I'm told that there are six forensic therapists and about 100 patients there who receive some health benefits, if not bottom-line accounting kind of benefits, from that operation. For that reason alone it might have been spared the axe.

We don't know what the price is that we are asking. We don't know what the future is going to be. The minister said we should be comforted by the fact that it is in the ALR and therefore somehow protected for its future use, in spite of the fact that his little words about fine-tuning strike terror in my heart. You can fine-tune anything out of existence, including a program on television or radio or whatever. The very fact that we have the agricultural land reserve today is not just philosophical. It's not just that the socialists want to put on some sort of land-grab. As a matter of fact, the minister supports this kind of socialist land-grab, if in fact it does exist.

The fact is that municipalities were unable to resist the blandishments of the developers, and the developers want to develop the land that is closest to large urban centres, because it is large urban centres combined with traffic patterns and zoning that determine values of land. Property is not valued in isolation from its location or its use. There is a term in real estate: "a higher and better use." The higher and better use for most land is how you can get the most money out of it.

Now there are other determinations as to use and value. The value might be environmental. In this case I think it is. Its value might be aesthetic. I think this is true as well. The Ministry of Housing — or else BCBC; I'm not certain which — has a tremendous development right above Colony Farm on the hillside. Lots are going for between $50,000 and $70,000 on the Shaughnessy Heights of Coquitlam. Actually, part of it is in my riding, but a good deal of it is in the riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam. Now the value of the property is going to be a great deal less if it overlooks a scenic pastoral setting such as Colony Farm than if you have a replication of what you see to the right: a huge area pumped full of river sand, upon which are sited some extremely aesthetic warehouses. It provides employment. It provides a lot of things. No one here is saying that industry has no right to exist, but environmentally, if you ask the minister, pumping sand all over wet land has severe environmental and fishing effects. For instance, why have our stocks gone down? Because we have allowed our wetlands to be filled in. That's only one of the reasons. So I say to the minister: there are other kinds of costs and benefits besides strictly the bottom line, or the ideological one. I am not at all comforted that the local councils of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, as fine bodies as they are — and I'm a former member of one of them — are, like many councils, able to resist some of the pressures.

The fine tuning: sure, I think it's important that you don't lock somebody into a particular piece of zoning forever. People have been disadvantaged by that. I recall when Coquitlam zoned what is now part of the Barnet Highway, and very, very attractive in terms of its value 15, 16, nearly 20 years ago now. As a councillor, I had to listen to representations by people who owned that land, zoned far in advance of its ultimate use. They couldn't sell it for the purpose for which it was zoned, and they needed desperately to be compensated. There may be a case when you freeze somebody's agricultural land to the point where he can neither make a living out of it or sell it for another purpose, and there should be some ways of compensating that person. But the solution is not necessarily to take it and blacktop that land. Neither is the solution to fine-tune all the agricultural land out of the lower mainland, where for 700 or 800 miles you clear....

In the north you're clearing some bush. You have a shorter growing season, and transportation problems that could be overwhelming.

Those are some concerns that I have when the minister says: "Yes, we're going to do this. No, we're not going to put a restrictive covenant on it because it's illegal, or it won't work," or for some other reason. What we want is a clear statement that the next sound we hear is not the CPR Marathon Realty buying that property, and we'll see the pumps in the river pumping river sand all over it.

I don't think Colony Farm has been a really big issue in my riding, although there are always people concerned about the erosion, the diminution of our agricultural potential. There are people who would like to see that area kept for research, and others who would like to keep it green. There are people who are philosophically opposed to selling it off privately unless it can be leased back, such as Minnekhada Farm in the same municipality has done. Nevertheless, it is an issue with some people, and I think it's something that we can't let go without comment. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but it's done now; if I'd had my druthers, it wouldn't have been done. I want the minister to know that, and we're going to be very conscious of what ultimately happens to that land.

There are a couple of things coming up now that I would like to know the minister's attitudes about. I think he was quite generous in saying that the marketing assurance programs, or the income assurance programs, have taken the peaks and valleys out of farming. I take it that even though some of his colleagues may disagree with marketing boards, stabilization and all the rest of it, he is four-square behind them. Is that the case? Could the minister nod or shake his head, or would he care to comment later?

[ Page 3101 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll comment later.

MR. ROSE: I notice that the minister said also that he felt that as a result of the protection through the farm income assurance program — and presumably marketing boards as well, because although they're not identical, they do have some kind of relationship.... You have to have a commodity group in order to qualify for farm income assurance. Most of the commodity groups are marketing boards, going back to the potato board of 1922 or something like that. They have a long history, through all kinds of different political parties in this country. They are usually associated, but not always, with supply management.

The minister has said that he is not content with supply management per se, that he wants to encourage these people who are in a monopoly — a union if you like, a marketing board, whichever way you choose to describe it — not to just limit their production but to increase their production and their efforts toward marketing that production — to feed the hungry of the world, I presume. But he wouldn't want them to do that if they had to do it at a loss. The big problem with any commodity group, and the reason we got into supply management, is that we had, as a result of marketing boards, a producers' monopoly. Even the licence to produce the quota is probably worth more than the production — but that's an aside. There were tremendous surpluses; butter was one, eggs another and poultry was another. I would like the minister to ask himself, and also tell us, how those two seemingly contradictory things can be managed: the idea of stimulating production and yet not having to handle overwhelming surpluses, regardless of the vigour with which marketing is pursued. I'd be very interested in that.

[4:15]

I would also be interested in what the minister has to say about red meat stabilization, because, as he well knows — and some of his colleagues will certainly remind him if he doesn't — the red meat industry, especially the cattlemen, are not really very happy about any kind of a marketing board, supply management or stabilization. Their attitude is: "Get the government off my back, leave me alone, let me manage my own affairs." They say: "Give us government land at 10 cents an acre — which we stole from the Blackfoot Indians — and keep out Australian beef. But no government intrusion. Protect us, but stay out of our lives." A lot of the people in that group, especially the big ranchers in western Canada, have resisted, through Charles Gracey, and other people who speak for the cattlemen's association, Whelan and his efforts to get a marketing board or some kind of stability in that industry. I'd like to know what the minister thinks about those efforts. Whose side is he on? Does he want to have stability within the industry? Is he in favour of some sort of farm income assurance for the beef farmers of western Canada, or isn't he? If he isn't, what is he for? What position is the province of British Columbia and his ministry going to take for these meetings with Whelan that are forthcoming within a week, having to do with the very serious problem in the red meat industry? The cattle markets have been extremely poor over the last two or three years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Eat more beef.

MR. ROSE: Well, that's one answer. There are some nutritionists who would argue that one, because they talk about cancer of the colon and a few other little things like that. I'm all in favour of eating more beef, regardless of the risk, but that isn't the total answer, and I think the minister knows it. The total answer may be somewhere else. The total answer may be closer to smoothing out the peaks and valleys through some kind of stabilization program than in simply eating more beef.

The big ranchers don't want to be touched. The little ranchers need help, whether they're in Ontario or Quebec. The big ranchers want the cows to vote. They don't want one man, one vote; they think that the number of animals should determine how much power they have. That's exactly what's happening in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. That is why, when I was a modest little cattleman out in the Fraser Valley, I made certain that Charles Gracey and the Canadian Cattlemen didn't get hold of that checkoff for four bits at every slaughterhouse, because I was opposed to what they believed in.

But I'd like to know what the minister believes in. Which way is B.C. going to go? Does he believe in stabilization in the red meat industry, or doesn't he? When Whelan calls this meeting, what stance is B.C. going to take? Are they going to go for the big cattlemen who want the cows to vote, or for the little guy who desperately needs some help in stabilization of his particular commodity group?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The first question had to do with the therapeutic value which the existence of Colony Farm afforded the local forensic unit there. The fact was....

MR. LEA: Is.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Should I say is?

The fact is that the therapeutic value was waning, as the member for the area knows. A few of the patients did have some little gardens where they went to do some planting and weeding, but when it came to the dairy herd there was little or no therapeutic value afforded the local residents, and it was the dairy herd which really precipitated the decision which had to be made. Although I have some empathy with the member's position of providing some therapeutic value for the residents of that forensic unit, nonetheless you have to put all of it together in the mix with the cold facts when you have to make the decision as to what you're going to do. The fact is that it was a milk-producing unit and not an experimental farm. UBC has its own experimental farm at Oyster River. The federal government has its own experimental farm at Agassiz. This was not an experimental farm; it had to stand on an assessment of its real value to society on the basis of what it really was, a production unit. We had to answer some very real questions of why we should be in the milk-producing business in the first place. If it had been an experimental farm I could see exactly the line of debate that the member for Coquitlam-Moody follows.

On the question of the red meat stabilization: there has been ongoing discussion between the federal government, the producers and the provincial government over what they call a tripartite red meat stabilization program. The producers from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have agreed to a level of stabilization program for red meats. The province of British Columbia has steadfastly resisted a red meat stabilization program, and not at the insistence of the government or of the minister; consensus was sought after by the discussion of all three levels. The fact is that the program

[ Page 3102 ]

which the province now has in place for British Columbia producers cannot be matched by a tripartite red meat stabilization program tripartite. As a result, the local producers have steadfastly said that unless we can somehow provide, in addition to the benefits under a red meat stabilization program, an additional benefit which would cover the real cost of production in the province, they're not interested. I for one do not believe in foisting upon the producers of British Columbia a program they do not want, so as a result the discussion is continuing.

We're hopeful. After all, I think any one of us would be very delighted to be able to utilize the 33.3 percent contribution to the premiums of that program by the federal government; we would love to have it, but only if it ultimately does us some good. That's the position on the red meat stabilization program.

MR. ROSE: Do I take it then that the minister is not necessarily opposed to the concept of some sort of national marketing stabilization provided the one-third would come with no strings attached so that the government of British Columbia could lower its contribution by that third, leaving the more superior — according to the minister — B.C. plan intact? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Not exactly, because....

I wish the member had been there for the discussions when all parties were present. It's not simply a matter of trying to get somebody else to pay the premium for an insurance plan that is hopefully going to do you some good. Regardless of the premium, you have to buy a plan which is better than the one you've got, or you've got no sale.

MR. ROSE: There's one other item. There have been some pretty strong arguments all across Canada recently over the matter of taxation and the collection of back taxes on all kinds of business, including part-time farmers. I've had considerable to do with this over the years, because I found that what the feds had been doing with part-time farmers in my riding was that they would come in, make an assessment based on information given by people willingly to the tax assessors — by the way, without witnesses or without any professional help from their accountants or lawyers, or anything else — and then the part-time farmers would find themselves suddenly assessed with maybe three or four years of back taxes.

Many of these people were probably investing more in their farm than they were getting out of it. They were working off the farm, but it was catch-22. Because they were working off the farm and the greater part of their income was from off the farm, they couldn't be classed as qualified farmers. If on the other hand they spent all their time on their farm, they wouldn't have enough money to eat. So the problem has been that ethically the Department of National Revenue was functioning very poorly. A lot of people were faced with horrendous tax loads going back three and four years, when the fact is that they had condemned themselves out of their own mouths, and they were never told that what they were saying was going to be held against them.

Large meetings have been held in the Fraser Valley — I believe in the riding of the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) over the last weekend. There are going to be others. It's an ongoing thing going back and applying not only to farmers but also to other businesses and industries.

Since part of that money — and I'm not sure exactly what percentage according to the tax points — comes to the provincial government, the provincial government has obviously got an interest in the behavior of National Revenue, because you do get money back. You have a tax rental system. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can tell us whether there is any interest on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture — or, for that matter, on the part of the government; I see the Premier is sitting over there. If so, has the government made any statement or taken any position in regard to the collection of taxes from these part-time farmers?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The audits which have been taking place around the province — first of all in the Cariboo country and more recently in the lower Fraser Valley — are audits which of course have been ordered by the revenue department. Section 21 of the act is being reinterpreted. Our ministry has taken what we believe is as strong a position as we can. Please remember that income tax levying at the federal level is a ball that is in their court. We can express our concerns and wishes and even give guidelines and offer assistance in how better to interpret section 21, all of which we have done. We cannot say then that this is the way it's going to be.

What has happened is a redefinition of the section for years that have already gone by. The difficulty that we have with it is this: in many instances, part-time farmers are people who have income from off the farm and have gone to the revenue department to ask for assistance in how to account for their earnings, returns and tax assessment. Having accepted that advice, they have gone ahead and made their returns in precisely the manner prescribed, and now they find that they have taxes payable. My position is clearly this: if they wish to change the rules of assessment and if they wish to change the rules in section 31 on off-farm income, that certainly is their prerogative. But to do it in such a manner that it contravenes previous instruction and advice, and then brings producers into a position where they can not even make arrangements to pay back taxes, seems harsh, and we've made that expression. Not only have we made the expression as loudly as we can; we have the federal Minister of Agriculture on our side. He is asking for a second look at section 31 and its interpretation.

At this moment we still cannot offer the hope which we wish we could offer to our provincial residents who have had this ugly experience with federal tax collectors. Nonetheless, we have taken a position. We have let that position be known. Our position is clearly known not only to the federal Minister of Agriculture but to the Minister of National Revenue.

[4:30]

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his information. I would like to tell him though, on section 31, that the policy of reassessment is up to the minister. When Herb Gray was Minister of National Revenue, I was able to succeed in a policy change, and that meant that there would be reassessment limited to one year. I have the documents if the minister is interested. But I am interested in his documents. He has said that the government has made the strongest possible recommendations for a change in policy, and I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table any correspondence or press releases, because I haven't seen any of it. I think it would be helpful for people to have in their possession the

[ Page 3103 ]

strong representations made by the minister and his government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that while we're negotiating is not the time to issue conclusive press releases, but I think that there would be no difficulty in at least sharing with the member the correspondence that has gone to the federal Minister of Agriculture and also to the federal Minister of National Revenue.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that he is prepared to make that correspondence available to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). I am wondering if he'd be prepared to table it. Will he table that correspondence, or is he going to limit the circulation?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I have agreed to circulate it to the member who has asked for it. If the member for Comox is also included in that request, no problem.

MS. SANFORD: At long last, Mr. Chairman, the government has indicated that it is prepared to extend to farmworkers the provisions for housing which now affect industrial sites in this province. It is high time. Farmworkers in this province, as in many other jurisdictions, have suffered under appalling working conditions. I want to pose a few questions to the minister with respect to the application of those industrial regulations as far as housing is concerned.

When discussion initially took place with respect to applying the industrial regulations to the farms in the province to ensure that farmworkers would have adequate housing when they are working, the government was considering assisting the farmers with some of the costs involved in the initial construction of those units. Now I've heard various figures advanced as to the amount of money the government was considering advancing to the farmers to assist them in following these industrial regulations. I have not heard recently what sort of assistance the government is prepared to advance in order to have the farmers comply with those regulations. Has the ministry undertaken any research into the costs involved to the various farms in the province? Has the ministry conducted discussions with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture about financial assistance to those farms in implementing those particular requirements?

The other question, Mr. Chairman, relates to the time-frame in which the farms must now meet those industrial standards as far as accommodation is concerned.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in providing accommodation for farmworkers on farms in British Columbia lies in the fact that the work is so very seasonal. When I was in the Okanagan I heard various conversations between producers. One suggested that there is no way that you could afford to build a Holiday Inn on the corner of your property for the workers who were only going to be utilizing that accommodation for a few weeks. Nonetheless, I think that somewhere between that extreme and the extreme which we had experienced has to be the right answer. A couple of years ago the ministry even had some funding to do some research with exactly that kind of accommodation in mind. The end result is that there is presently available for orchardists and farmers a floor plan for accommodation which meets standards and which can be built very, very inexpensively. It provides the kind of shelter, the kind of warmth and the standard of housing which would be adequate for temporary housing. I am sorry I didn't bring it with me — I didn't expect the question — but the plan is available and the cost of putting it up is very, very reasonable. There is a firm in the Okanagan which is taking on the task of building this kind of shelter and making it available on a contract basis.

As far as funding is concerned, I am sorry that the budget which is before us does not have money targeted as financial assistance for that kind of a program, but the member does make a good suggestion that is worthy of consideration.

MS. SANFORD: What about the time-frame? When do they have to be in place?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member, Mr. Chairman, asked about a time-frame — whether there is a deadline for when this accommodation needs to be in place. I'm sorry I'm not aware of a deadline that has been put in place. I think that what is happening, though, is that on a continuing basis individual farmers themselves see the validity of having adequate accommodation for these people.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I think that's one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, with respect to farm work and farmworkers in British Columbia. You can see that many farmers throughout the province have provided excellent accommodation, even though they are providing them for seasonal workers. They saw the need years ago, and they made the attempt and undertook the expense at that time. Unless the government is more definitive in saying that, within six months, a year or whatever is reasonable at this point, these regulations shall be met, then we might be looking at another 10, 20 or 30 years before we have adequate accommodation for those farmworkers.

It's not good enough to say: "Oh, these should be in place, but I don't think that there's any time-frame." That's not good enough. If we are concerned about the kinds of accidents that have taken place because of the total lack of adequate accommodation — horse barns that have been converted, no running water, no provision for farmworkers who are out in those fields that have been sprayed with various herbicides and pesticides, they don't even have accommodation; they don't even have the ability to take a shower when they get in — then, Mr. Chairman, the government has to put some time-frame on it. That's not good enough. As I say, many farmers have done well by their workers. But it is the others, those who have not seen the need, and who still don't see the need, and who will not see the need, in my view, unless the government brings in some time-frame for the application of those industrial regulations as far as they apply to accommodation.

Some of them may need financial help at this stage, because of the fact that the industry is in a difficult position, as the minister pointed out earlier. But, Mr. Chairman, we can't allow those accommodations to continue to exist in this province which are so inadequate that in some cases they have resulted in deaths to farmworkers or their family members. I would appreciate having the minister give us some assurance that there will be a time-frame for the application of those regulations.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I appreciate the member's concern and share it. I do not believe that a year such as this in

[ Page 3104 ]

which the farm producer is trying and seeking, with government help, to avoid bankruptcy would be a year in which to stipulate those deadlines. I appreciate, though, the member's concern.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, this is typical of the minister and his government, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman. What he has just told us is that it's okay for farmworkers to live in the conditions under which they have been living. He shares the concern but: "Oh, we couldn't possibly improve conditions this year, because of the economic situation in this province." Well, for heaven's sake, if there are farmers who are not able by one means or other to meet those regulations within a reasonable time — and I would suggest a year at the outside — then let's have the government come in and assist them at this stage, either through some kind of loan or grant program. The minister says: "Oh, too bad. Too bad we may have more deaths because we haven't applied the regulations, because we think, oh, the poor farmer may not be able to meet those requirements this year." You can't play with people's lives that way, Mr. Chairman. You cannot. You've got to have some consideration, some action, some leadership from government to ensure that we have safe, adequate accommodation for those people who have suffered all these years because of neglect.

The minister talks about his commitment to agriculture. A very important part of agriculture, Mr. Chairman, is those agricultural workers. I know it's too bad. We've been able to increase our budget; we've been able to maintain all these things. Our commitment is to the farm industry in this province. There is no commitment to the farm industry if they cannot ensure that the farmworkers have adequate accommodation and that their families are not threatened with death because the government is not prepared to take the necessary action. This is news to me today, Mr. Chairman. I assumed when that announcement was made that those accommodations would be in place this summer. It now appears that there is no time limitation at all. "We want the regulations. We want them to apply, but if you don't want to do it, that's okay" — in spite of the fact that we have this sordid history of the kind of accommodation that the farmworkers have had to live in. That's a disgrace.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $78,200,677 — approved.

Vote 7: milk board, $263,285 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $715,042 — approved.

[4:45]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 76: minister's office, $200,936.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to finally come to the estimates that we have all been waiting for — at least I have. I like to get them debated. I just have a few remarks to make before we go into the questions and the other debate.

In 1983-84 we had an infusion of $189 million from the employment development account into the highway capital program, resulting in greatly accelerated highway construction activity all over the province. It was an increase, over the fiscal year 1982-83, of 64 percent in grading, 250 percent in paving and 65 percent in bridges. During debate since last June or July, remarks have been made that our government didn't create any jobs. In the case of this program, it did create 8,000 direct jobs. It's quite arguable, I guess, how many indirect jobs were created, but it was probably twice that number. So it did give work to a fair number of people when it was badly needed.

There were 38 grading contracts on 297 kilometres of construction. The Revelstoke-Mica section of Highway 23 was completed, and the new Chetwynd–Tumbler Ridge highway in the northeast coal development was completed except for some minor carryover of second level paving into 1984. Many of the active contracts involved construction of four lane urban highways throughout the lower mainland and many centres in the interior.

Work progressed on the Annacis access with the bridge crossing. As far as paving is concerned, I guess we had the largest paving projects in the history of British Columbia during 1983.

Regarding bridges during 1983, 66 bridges were under construction. The amount of bridging completed is equivalent to more than 2.6 kilometres of two-lane highway. Railway overpass structures are being constructed in several locations on the CNR between Prince George and Prince Rupert to eliminate conflicts between highway traffic and increased rail traffic.

Another program, which is a small program but very effective, is the air transport assistance program. During its six-year life the air transport assistance program has made 133 separate grants. These grants have assisted 76 communities in providing improved airport facilities. We have invested $17.5 million in the smaller communities of British Columbia.

I guess the major achievement in 1983 was the paving of a 6,000-foot strip at Dease Lake. Not only will the strip provide improved access for all those interested in the development of northwest British Columbia but it will also provide a base for forest fire protection, if that be required.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the motor vehicle branch comes under this ministry. They experienced another busy year, with 1.9 million licensed vehicles and 2.2 million drivers now on record. Accident prevention programs, with emphasis on the elimination of those that are alcohol related, continues as a high priority to the motor vehicle branch.

As the members know, the Crown corporation of the B.C. Ferries also comes under this ministry, as well as B.C. Steamships. I haven't too much to say on B.C. Steamships. That will come out in debate.

B.C. Ferries faced a challenging year in 1983, one in which some hard decisions had to be made. These decisions weren't made any easier by the national recession, but I might say in my opening remarks that there is a sign of recovery of the traffic on B.C. Ferries, particularly in the commercial traffic. I made the observation when we were discussing rates that we didn't increase the commercial rates on B.C. Ferries systems, and I hope that is part reason for the recovery of traffic. There are certainly increases comparing

[ Page 3105 ]

1982 with November and December of 1983 and January of 1984.

With that I will sit down and look forward to the debate under the estimates.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, as a critic for the opposition I've broken the debates down into provincial and constituency with the highways, and then my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) will be dealing with the B.C. Ferries.

I think we have to change the picture of the minister in the ministry report. I think that's his high school graduation picture. I hope the next report will have a recent picture of the hon. minister.

On to more serious things. The first one is the Motor Carrier Commission, and it's good to see your able staff behind you. For the year that I've been dealing with the minister over these issues, I've always found it very helpful to go to him when there's a constituency or provincial problem. His staff have always been fair to me and given me the information that I've needed. I would like to thank the minister for the cooperation he has afforded me over the years.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: What am I supposed to do? I say something nice and then you people start heckling me. Come on! Let's show some respect in here for the hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's leadership.

MR. REID: That's good government.

MR. PASSARELL: Not again! Mr. Chairman, it's five minutes to five Pacific Daylight Time. Do you remember when we used to hear "good government" at 3 o'clock in the morning?

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: No more of that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly the member could direct his remarks to the Chair and be relevant to vote 76.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The first issue I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the Motor Carrier Commission. I've received numerous letters in the last few months regarding legitimate small business tourist operators in the Vancouver area who are, in their opinion, being run out of business by operators who are running without proper licensing, such as vehicle-for-hire licences in the metropolitan area, as well as getting away with some of the ICBC rates. They're running little gyppo outfits and running these legitimate businesses out. I would like the minister to look into that. I have some correspondence that I think we could discuss at a later time. I know the minister is aware of the problem and the need of a crackdown on these illegal operations.

With regard to the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I'd like to centre on a couple of issues. Going from the report I picked out four areas. Snow removal for highways: Courtenay, $1.32 million; Dease, $1.2 million; Chilliwack, $2.2 million; Kamloops, $1.8 million. These are the stats from the latest annual report, and I wonder why the discrepancies between the south and the far north. I wonder why so much — for instance, almost 50 percent higher for Chilliwack than for the whole Dease Lake area. I don't know how far the exact boundaries of the Chilliwack highway district go; do they go past Hope? Is that why the snow removal figure is so high?

The next issue that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is capital cost. This is on page 36 of the annual report. I picked out six regions: Atlin, $15.4 million; Cariboo, $30.4 million; Kamloops, $19.2 million; South Peace, $25.5 million; Yale-Lillooet, $27.4 million; Okanagan South, $11.9 million. I wonder why the discrepancy between Atlin, which probably has the least amount of pavement.... Our one major road is Highway 37. I'm not saying we have to pave Highway 37 totally; I don't think that would be needed. But why a 100 percent difference between Atlin and Cariboo? Cariboo must have one of the highest — if not the highest — percentages of blacktopped pavement in the province.

The fourth area I'd like to discuss with the minister is the vehicle inspection branch. Presently we're sitting in committee on that issue; hopefully tomorrow we'll be able to resolve some of the issues regarding the government inspection and turning it over to private enterprise. I'm not going to play Dracula and get into the aspect of the buses; I think that's better left for the inquiry and the committee. And I don't want to use this important stage to discuss the mishap of a few weeks ago. I don't think this is the proper forum for it at this time, and I'm going to go past that. But in closing, I know it is important and I know the minister shares the same responsibility and feeling that we have to keep buses in 100 percent mechanical condition.

The fifth area I'd like to discuss with the minister is the air ambulance service. That's another area in which I've received quite a bit of correspondence. The hon. member, this afternoon during the health estimates, discussed with the hon. minister some issues regarding Aero Control. Are you familiar with the application in front of the CTC? If I'm not mistaken, a complaint was directed to the CTC in January 1984 by Aero in respect to ambulance service provided by the province. I would like the minister's feelings on that since this is an essential program, particularly in the rural areas of this province. Is it the intent of the government to privatize the air ambulance service?

The sixth area I'd like to discuss with the minister is the air transport assistance program, a very worthwhile program in the rural and isolated areas of this province. One issue we're going to have some problems with, and have had over the year, is the Atlin Board of Trade — the $1.6 million the minister filed on questions of going to the Atlin Board of Trade. The minister may or may not be aware that the Atlin Board of Trade.... If you look through the annual report on where moneys have gone for this worthwhile program, they've gone almost ten times out of ten to duly elected groups: a regional board, a municipal council. This is one of the few cases in the province where a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money has gone to a non-elected group, the Atlin Board of Trade, which really doesn't serve the community as a regional district or municipality does. I'll talk about that further when it comes to constituency issues. Just as a closing thought on this worthwhile program, I'd like to congratulate the minister and his staff for their dedication and hard work

[ Page 3106 ]

on the airport assistance programs for rural areas in this province.

[5:00]

Just as a side note, in the annual report on vote 201, page 27, it says $391 for office rental under this program. That's a pretty good deal. I was wondering how they got away with $391 for office rental. If it's in the area, I might be able to use it to put my sleeping bag in.

The seventh issue I'd like to discuss is another area of concern. I think the minister shares the same feelings about regulations regarding a compulsory light-on period in the province. There has been a considerable number of letters sent to my office, as well as articles in papers about having compulsory light-on periods for cars to cut down on motor vehicle accidents in the province. One article in "Focus" states that if we had adopted a light-on period in this province we could cut back traffic accidents by 20 percent. I would certainly like the minister to look at some type of legislation to have a light-on period right across this province for motor vehicles.

The eighth issue regarding motor vehicles is one that I've also received much correspondence on, particularly because of the recession. We're finding a lot of people unemployed who have motor vehicle points for accidents or speeding. I've got a number of letters from individuals, particularly in the Victoria area, who can't renew their licences because they haven't been able to come up with the money to pay for the points. They've sold their cars to pay off some of their debts, but by the same token they haven't been able to come up with the money, and they can't have their licences renewed until they pay for the points.

One particular issue that I'd like to discuss with the minister privately is what can be done for an individual who needs his licence to borrow his mother's car, for instance, to go for a job application or job interview, but he can't even get his driver's licence renewed until he pays off his points. He's sold his car and doesn't have any insurance. What can be done on that program? Some kind of sign a guarantee, or something, that once they get a job they're going to pay the $500 or something? A couple of people in the Victoria area have written to me and contacted me personally, saying that they can't go out and use a car to get around town to look for jobs because they have this $500 point thing.

The last issue, provincially-wise, is the numerous letters from certain communities along the Island Highway in need of overpasses. I know we've discussed this in the last couple of months. School children are put in dangerous situations when crossing guards are not available, let's say after the half hour after school or before the half hour before, getting across the Island Highway. I'd like to talk to the minister and show some of the correspondence regarding the need for overpasses in certain areas along the Island Highway.

On to the constituency issues. One of the programs that I support from the minister is the rental use from private machine operators in the province. One of the questions that you tabled in the House the other day was question 88, in which I asked you: "On recent highway construction on 37, was the construction equipment used from Fort St. John, and if so, if similar equipment was available at Centreville and registered with the Dease Lake Highways office, why was not local equipment hired instead of highway equipment from 400 miles east?" Your reply was: "As there were no local machines suitable for large volume earth moving, machines were brought in from Fort St. John." I'd like the minister to check on that, because that's definitely not the case. The individuals who asked me to ask this question last year have large earth-moving equipment that they use in their placer operations. I've seen them, and I know that they're registered with the Dease Lake office. I would certainly hope that the minister could look into this issue prior to the construction season coming up this spring and summer.

The next constituency issue I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the Greenville bridge. Just as a background on it, children in Greenville have to walk across the Nass River when it's frozen to attend school, because there's no road on that side of the river. It's quite a dangerous situation. The minister came in and provided the funds to build this bridge downriver from Greenville. I would like some information on it. Where is that bridge? What stage is it done? How long before it's committed where individuals will be able to drive across it? Will it be done in '84-85? I know there have been some problems in the last fall with fall runoffs and to a certain extent ice accumulating under the bridge and taking down some of the pilings in the area, and I would like the minister's statements regarding this bridge.

Also, on the same token, the cost must be subjective, but when it comes to children either walking 400 or 500 yards across the ice to get on the school bus or going on a bridge, I don't think we can ever put cost limitations on that. I know the minister has gone ahead and committed the government to build the Greenville bridge.

The third constituency issue is the highway rights-of-way — and I'm talking particularly about those between the Yukon border and Atlin. I would like a program similar to the one in Alberta. In the Alberta system you could almost land a 747 on the rights-of-way, but the one between the Yukon border and Atlin has boulders four or five feet high sitting 30 feet off the road. It is a very dangerous situation; people go off the road. With the amount of traffic, the tourists who drive on the Atlin road, and having these boulders.... With the summer coming up, I hope we can work out some kind of program with small businesses in the area to remove these boulders. It is not one or two boulders; in that 30-mile section there is a considerable number of boulders on the rights-of-way.

The fourth issue is the need to get rid of the numerous Bailey bridges on Highway 37. I think Highway 37 would probably go down in the Guinness Book of Records as having the most Bailey bridges in one area in the world. We've got to get rid of them. I know the minister has embarked on a system of tearing them down. They're very dangerous. If you come in on some of those Bailey bridges on 37, particularly when the mines are in operation, which they are not at this stage.... With the amount of heavy truck traffic on Highway 37, coming in on one of those single-lane Bailey bridges is quite dangerous. I would certainly like to see an expanded bridge program this summer to get rid of those Bailey bridges.

The fifth issue: are there any plans by the ministry to connect Greenville to Kincolith by road? Once that Greenville bridge comes into existence there will be a need to have road access from Kincolith. The only access out of Kincolith now is the Canada 3 down to Prince Rupert. We're not talking about that many miles between Kincolith and Greenville, and hopefully the minister can expand upon some type of program.

In the same region, the Nass Road. I know the minister must be deluged with letters from the Nass regarding the goat

[ Page 3107 ]

trail. Is the Nass Road a gazetted highway? I don't think so. It's operated by B.C. Timber, and when they are not in operation the residents are subjected to a goat trail. What type of program could be worked out, when B.C. Timber isn't in operation, to have a proper road? I'm not talking about blacktop, I am talking about a road that I've travelled considerably. I don't understand how individuals in Greenville can afford the damage done to their cars and trucks driving back and forth on that road.

The sixth issue is Telegraph Creek: the road, capital cost, construction programs. Are they being expanded this summer? There is a need.... I know it's not the responsibility of the ministry, but the airstrip in Telegraph Creek is bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball. The regional board is more or less responsible for clearing that airstrip, which is needed for the air ambulance to come in and for the charter flights to catch up in the Dease Lake where the jet can land. Often no one will go out and plough the airstrip unless there is a dire emergency and they are able to find somebody to get their grader out and going. Could there be some kind of a continuing program where the snow could be removed from that airstrip at Telegraph Creek?

The seventh issue is the need to blacktop the seven or eight miles between Cassiar and the junction. The minister has started a right-of-way program on that. It's a very busy section of road, and there definitely needs to be blacktopping or oil or something on there. In summertime, when you get those big trucks rolling out of Cassiar, that seven miles on the Cassiar junction to the townsite is quite a dangerous situation.

The next issue will be the ferry operation, as we have a joint critic role here. That's about twenty questions that I've addressed to the minister, and I would like his answers to those.

HON. A. FRASER: I'll go from last to first and attempt to answer. First of all, Cassiar upgrading. We have spent some money as you know, Mr. Member, upgrading the access road to Cassiar. Eventually we'll get around to paving it as well. But I think there is still some construction work to do, and then it would all be wound up that way when funds are available.

The Telegraph Creek road and airport. I've been there, and I think they certainly should work something out if you're worried about maintenance — that is, snow removal at Telegraph Creek — with Highways. But we haven't any plans to spend any money on an airport at Telegraph Creek, because we just spent a lot of money, as you know, on Dease Lake. They've got a paved strip there, and those people will hopefully be better served by that for the time being. It doesn't have priority — I'm talking about building a new strip in Telegraph Creek and the overall remote areas — because of the lack of people.

The Nass Valley road is a timber access road, as you know, and we give a grant for snow removal. That's where we're at there. A not too satisfactory situation, but it is not in the highway system. It is a forestry-maintained road.

MR. PASSARELL: Who gets the money? B.C. Timber?

HON. A. FRASER: The Forest Service get it, as far as we're concerned, and then they put it out.

You have a question in here regarding Bailey bridges. You're quite correct — you have the biggest number of Bailey bridges in the highway system. We have a plan to replace them all. It's just a question of money. We've got a long way to go.

[5:15]

You mentioned Atlin road. We have done some work on the Atlin road. I think what you're saying is you want some more done to clean up the right-of-way with boulders and so on. I know from driving there that we have done some, and it's just a question of allocating more money. I think that's the problem. I don't think we have a problem of acquisition of right-of-way.

Dealing again with the Nass Valley and the Greenville bridge, we have a contract out for the bridge. I think that was awarded in 1981 or 1982, probably. It is a large structure — $4 million or $5 million. They had some difficulty in construction, but they've now got the piers done and they're waiting to put the superstructure on. Those people could use that bridge, I'm sure, before the end of 1984. The way things are going I don't think there's any doubt about that. We have approaches to the bridge that we have to work on. We're going to do that. The bridge definitely should be in use in the calendar year 1984 — I'd say late in the fall. But I'd point out to the member that there is no road from there to Greenville. We've got a little, but I think there's argument going on there. I'm not so sure where that's at, but I think we have to deal with the Greenville people. Then you mentioned Greenville-Kincolith — I would think the actual thing is, yes, go right on from Greenville till Kincolith and then have the proper access. But I think that's a fair mouthful. I think it's a fair distance to go.

MR. PASSARELL: Twenty-some miles.

HON. A. FRASER: Right. But you can see that coming in the long distance away so those people would have proper access.

You made mention of equipment rentals. We have a system in the ministry all over the province that people who want to work for the ministry must register in our different district offices — I believe 38 of them. We advertise that fact — we don't just leave it and be silent — with a legal ad that if you want to work for us get your equipment listed by a certain time. We have, as you know, a district office at Dease Lake, and equipment registered there should be used if it's adequate. I'll have to look and see why it wasn't used. I can't guess — whether they were registered or whether they weren't, or what they had registered was what we didn't want, or wasn't adequate. You're talking here, I think, about scrapers and bulldozers, and maybe they didn't have adequate equipment. I don't know, but we'll certainly find out.

School crossings on the Island Highway. We have problems with school crossings all over the province. We give all the engineering help we can. We give the help through the school boards. We deal with the school boards on these problems and we assist them, I think, in quite an adequate way without actually paying for school guards and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure about paying for points, which you bring up. I believe that's ICBC that....

MR. PASSARELL: I'll talk to you later about it.

HON. A. FRASER: Okay.

[ Page 3108 ]

You mentioned compulsory lights. I don't know whether the superintendent wants to make a note of it. I think you're referring to compulsory lights on vehicles during the day hours. As you know, some companies such as Greyhound instruct all their vehicles to have lights on 24 hours a day. I don't know if a study has been made as to whether that's an asset in safety and the reduction in accidents or not, but it isn't something we're imminently looking at that I'm aware of.

The airport assistance program, as I mentioned when I opened, is a very successful small program. We deal with the Atlin Board of Trade. As far as I know they were the only responsible body we could deal with at the time. That's why that took place, because there wasn't a regional district government or a municipal government. We've been basically fairly satisfied, although we're certainly not finished with the Atlin airport yet. We eventually want to get it paved.

Regarding the complaint, I believe this is just something new. That complaint was from the airline company about the government being in the air ambulance business, and that it should be in the private sector. I believe they've complained to the transport board in Ottawa. I don't know the details. As far as we're concerned, we have no intention of getting out of the business, but maybe the transport board in Ottawa will tell us we have to. I don't know. We think that it's one of the finest services we can give, particularly in the interior and rural areas. As for assisting us in air ambulance service, they have a system they use in the air services. They do call out the private sector to help, particularly on weekends. That's their busiest time. Our planes fly constantly from Friday till Monday. Unfortunately you're mostly following up on automobile accidents, but at times they need help and we call on the private sector.

You mentioned the vehicle inspection branch and all that. Well, I think you're right, Mr. Member, that we're in committee on this now — a House committee that was set up. As a matter of fact, there's a meeting tomorrow. Maybe that's the best place for that to be discussed at this time.

In your opening remarks you mentioned the Motor Carrier Commission. As you know, that's a semi-judicial body, but the money for its operation comes through this ministry. We have no end of problems with the Motor Carrier Commission all the time — all types of problems: licensing and so on. I wasn't aware of what you brought in, but there could well be some unlicensed carriers. But my experience with that is that licensed carriers will sure complain in a hurry, and then the Motor Carrier Commission should act. That's really where that's at. We don't have to do the policing. In other words, the licensed carrier does the policing, and then reports. But my own comment on the Motor Carrier Commission is that it seems that everybody that's got a licence, whether it's bus, taxi or commercial freight carrier, is unhappy. Everybody that has a licence is unhappy, and everybody that hasn't got a licence is unhappy. So we have quite a mix going on there.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I made a note about snow removal, but I think you got into capital costs regarding Atlin and Cariboo. I'll just say that the information I have, without checking it, is that Cariboo riding has the most gazetted roads in British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They have now.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I know, but they always have had. My being minister didn't change that. While Atlin is a big area, it doesn't compare in road mileage to Cariboo. I'm talking public gazetted roads.

Regarding Highway 37 in Atlin riding and the other roads, I think we made a big effort to upgrade. I'm not sure without checking, but I think we'll have everything blacktopped this year from Highway 16 right to Stewart. I can recall it wasn't many years ago we used bulldozers to pull traffic through the mud in springtime, and so we're making progress. We have a long way to go when we look at Highway 37 from Meziadin Junction north, another 300 miles to rebuild. That's quite a way, but we're on the way now and making some progress.

I think I've covered most of the questions you had, Mr. Member.

MR. PASSARELL: I appreciate the minister's answers. He answered most of my questions.

We were talking about the daylight lights-on program, and this is a report from Transport Canada that might be interesting to the minister.

Second, we were discussing the Atlin airport. There was another community organization elected prior to your giving the $1.6 million to the Atlin Board of Trade, set up by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that was the Atlin Advisory Planning Commission, which is duly elected from the area. I appreciate your candid answers, but don't go up and cut that ribbon. You were going up there to cut that ribbon in September or October, but I think you got sick. But don't go cut that ribbon until you get that hump in the middle of the airport fixed. Someone is going to get killed on that thing.

Third, there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the community regarding the Atlin Board of Trade running it and giving the grants instead of a duly elected group in the area. As you stated in question 89, there was $1.6 million in grants during 1979-83, and you said: "The responsibility for contract awards and payments rests with the Atlin District Board of Trade. This community project has made extensive use of local labour and equipment." I don't want to see the ministry trapped into a scandal over this, and I think before it gets too far out of hand you should have somebody in your ministry check into what exactly is going on up there. It's just a suggestion. It is true there is extensive use of local labour and equipment, but some of that extensive use is going to one or two people who are on the Atlin Board of Trade. As fair comment, I hope that your ministry looks into it. Maybe you'll be able to use a duly elected organization in the area to give you some feedback. There have been some public meetings in the Atlin area in the last month regarding this issue from the duly elected Atlin Advisory Planning Commission, and I think it would be worthwhile for the ministry to look into it.

That's all I have to say, and I appreciate the minister's comments on the questions I raised.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few questions and comments to make under this particular estimate. I must say that I had the pleasure of being the opposition official critic for this estimate for several years before our roles were changed this past year. I enjoyed working with, or against, the minister.

First, I should say that I hope the recently retired deputy minister, Mr. Harvey, enjoys his retirement. He worked long and hard for the ministry over many years. He was very

[ Page 3109 ]

approachable, and I know the minister will miss his services. I am receiving very good cooperation from the other staff members — Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Johnson and all the people over there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Press on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We got a little time on this one. We've all got roads and highways. He wants to go home by March. No way.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 76, hon. members.

[5:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, if conversation going on across the floor disturbs you, I'll try to keep it soft.

My part of this portfolio is deals basically with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I do have some comments to make in that regard, but I also have a number of roads and highways in my riding, and I would be remiss if I didn't discuss those and the funds required to do something about those roads.

I might ask the minister at this point — and if the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has already asked this question I'm sorry I missed the answer: some time ago, I believe just prior to the last provincial election, the minister and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) made a number of announcements regarding job creation programs, highway and bridge work. I forget the exact amounts, but going from memory I believe it was approximately an additional $146 million — something like that. I don't have the figure in front of me. I wonder if the minister, when he responds to my questions, would be good enough to tell the House how that program is coming and whether those funds are being spent. The reason I ask is that when I look through the estimate book for last.... You know we are discussing last year's estimates two years late, Mr. Chairman; I think that's been mentioned several times in this House. We will be discussing the Highways ministry's estimates for the current year probably within the next — who knows? — two or three months or whatever. So we're really discussing money here that has presumably already been spent, shoved away in a sock somewhere or maybe injected up into the northeast coal venture, or wherever it has gone. The reason I asked the question is that I noticed in last year's estimates that the minister's budget is down somewhat less than the previous year, the 1982-83 fiscal year total overall budget. So I'd like to know if that $160 million or $146 million, or whatever it was, is included in this budget somewhere. I can't seem to find it, but I'm sure it must be in there somewhere. Or was that special warrants through Treasury Board? Has that money been expended?

HON. A. FRASER: Under employment development?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right, the employment development program. Maybe the minister could explain to us how much, if not all, of that money was spent, and how many new jobs it created after the cutbacks.

I do intend to take a few minutes to discuss roads and highways in my riding, but the minister is very much aware that the reason I'm on my feet at the moment is to discuss some recent things that have happened in the B.C. Ferry Corporation, particularly two items.

In some cases there have been horrendous fare increases, in the view of many of my constituents: people living on the Gulf Islands, Bowen Island and the north coast. I'm very much aware that generally speaking the rate of fare increases is approximately 6 percent — the fares to Vancouver Island. Fair enough. I said many years ago under another portfolio of another minister, responsible to this House for the corporation at that time, when fares were increased by 50 percent in some cases, that it was my view that people in this province, because of inflation and these kinds of things, were prepared to accept modest fare increases, but to wallop them with 50 percent increases in one fell swoop was just a bit excessive. And the government at that time, in a number of cases, rolled back the fares — by order-in-council, I believe; certainly from direction of cabinet to the board of directors. We have seen fare increases over the past several years taking place in an annual sort of way, around 5, 6 or 7 percent — somewhere in that area. And fair enough — generally speaking. I think the users of the system understand these kinds of things and will accept those kinds of fare increases.

But here's what happened, Mr. Chairman. Fare increases went into effect on January 1, 1984. I've got a schedule of the rates here, but I don't want to get into that just now. I'm suggesting to you that for a number of areas — the Sunshine Coast, Gulf Islands and Bowen Island particularly.... I have a brief here, and I'm sure that the member representing Bowen Island will get up and speak in this debate at some point on this matter. I'm sure he's very much more knowledgeable about that particular situation than I am. I know the member did meet with the delegation this morning, as a matter of fact. However, what I'm saying is that we had rate increases in certain areas of the coast of British Columbia far in excess of the government's own guidelines that were announced by the Premier of this province two years ago or so. He said we must fight inflation and we cannot allow rate increases above 6 and 5 percent. Then we got a stabilization commissioner, Mr. Peck, and all kinds of things were done — cutbacks in the public service.... This is not the place to debate that, but I'm just giving you some examples, Mr. Chairman.

What happened in terms of the fare increases to areas like the Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island, Gulf Islands and the north coast was simply this: one of the things that happened is that residents living in that area enjoyed what was called a resident card. If you were on the voters' list on the regional district or municipality anywhere from from Gibsons to Powell River or Texada Island, you could go to the municipal hall and get a card with your picture on it, certifying that you were a resident of that area and got a somewhat reduced rate. That scheme, by the way, was introduced by a former Social Credit government in, I believe, 1970 or 1971. I think the present minister was in the House at the time; he may remember that. However, that was a vote-getting scheme which I didn't oppose. I was one of the first people to get a resident card. There was nothing wrong with it, and it worked for a while. But the fact was that that plan was introduced by a former Social Credit government in this province for the convenience of people on the Sunshine Coast. I didn't knock the plan. In fact, I thought it was very fair, since I was a resident of the Sunshine Coast.

This last December, when the fare increases were announced by the management people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation, not only did we get the fare increases applicable to everybody else but the corporation removed preferred fares

[ Page 3110 ]

for residents living in that area, affecting between 40,000 and 42,000 residents living on the Sunshine Coast and in the Powell River area. So we ended up with a fare increase in excess of 30 percent. The rate increase for people living on Bowen Island was somewhat in excess of that. I have the figures here, and I'll get to that in a short while.

However, we did end up with this horrendous fare increase, and there was a huge public outcry. I have correspondence from every municipality, regional district and a number of chamber of commerce people. I'm not going to read at length from this correspondence and the many letters from individuals about the unfairness of the kind of rate increases that we faced in those areas. I want the minister to understand that I'm able to read annual reports, and I've had good cooperation from the Ferry Corporation in terms of the general manager and chairman of the board providing information on subsidies and deficits on a number of the routes. I'm very much aware of these things, but that is not the point I'm making here. I'm talking not only about my own riding but about the other areas affected as well. The Gulf Islands and Bowen Island are good examples and are not NDP ridings. The unfairness of the situation shows where a selected group of people were chosen for large, unfair fare increases, and those fare increases are counter-productive. As you increase those fares, fewer and fewer people utilize those vessels. So one of the first things to happen is that the tourist and potential tourist trade falls and people trying to make their living suffer. There's no question about it. In my riding we found that after every fare increase.... Those people feel the net result of those fare increases. That's the first thing that happens.

The next thing that happens is that people who would normally consider using those ferries do so less and less — all through the fleet. I want to talk about three of them in a few minutes. Operating costs are increased as fuel prices and negotiated salaries go up a bit at a time. But there is less use of the vessel on any given route. So when you go into the B.C. Ferry Corporation to make the argument against increasing fares, they'll pull out the figures — I have many of them here, and certainly all of them for last year and previous years; this year's annual report hasn't come down yet — and say: "The average capacity use of the vessel on route 3" — Langdale to Horseshoe Bay, one I'm familiar with — "is only 26 percent or 28 percent over the year, so we have to increase fares in order to at least get some return on our investment for that particular vessel and the costs of operating it." But what happens is that people use the vessel less — those who can; many people can't. If you're a commuter, you have no choice but to either get on that vessel and go to work or stay home and lose a day's pay or get fired. So you are tied in.

On the positive side of all I'm telling you — and I've only just started, Mr. Chairman — is that Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Baldwin did accept my invitation and came to Powell River, the Sunshine Coast and Texada Island. I understand that Mr. Baldwin met with the citizens on Bowen Island as well. I'm not sure if he went to the Gulf Islands or not. At this point that's really neither here nor there. The point I'm making is that, first of all, you have to admire Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Hodgson for coming up into these areas; people were very angry and upset. But they did come up and they met with many groups, including, as I said, the municipalities, chambers of commerce, the interested concerned citizens and so on, and some progress was made. They didn't agree to return the resident cards. We were told at the time that there was no way the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation could make that decision to reduce fares or reinstate resident commuter cards to people living in the area. That was a decision that had to be made in cabinet or by Treasury Board — as I understood that conversation, and there were a lot of people present. But what they did do — and we appreciate this very much....

[5:45]

There was another system in place whereby you could purchase resident commuter cards in block lots at quite a reduced price. It had been available to people here on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver for many years, and a lot of people take advantage of that system. But the tickets were only good for a month. I think there were only four blocks of tickets, as I recall, sold in the whole area of Powell River, with about 28,000 to 30,000 people. They were absolutely useless to a majority of us because we were not commuting. How can you commute from there to Vancouver everyday? After the end of a month they were gone. If you had spent $146, I believe it was at the time, for a block of tickets, you could easily be out $100. In other words, they were absolutely useless to us. They were of a little more value to people on the Sunshine Coast, since they only have to take one ferry and we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 people or so who commute to work every morning and home every evening.

I will say that Mr. Hodgson and the board of directors did say that we do have jurisdiction as a board to remove the monthly restrictions on these commuter tickets, and they will be open-ended and good all year around or forever. That helped a lot. I'm not knocking that because.... Am I putting you to sleep, Mr. Minister? You've been through this many times haven't you? Yes, you have. But we've still got to get it on the Hansard, don't we?

In any event, I did appreciate the fact that Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Baldwin would go that far, but it was not far enough. The net result of all of this, Mr. Chairman? As computed by the people in the auditing department at Powell River, first of all we still are faced with and are now in fact paying a 26 percent increase over the previous rate. I'm not sure about that figure, but that's the figure I was given. Where other routes have a 6 percent increase, we have, on the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and Texada Island, a 26 percent increase in ferry fares. I don't believe that is fair.

Another issue relating to this — and I promised the mayor of the community just last week that I would mention this.... Because I've been dealing with this portfolio for some time I understand the concept and some of the answers that I would receive from the minister or the ministry regarding free ferries up in the interior. But it has not become a large issue on the coast of British Columbia. The question is asked: why? Why free ferries, which are essentially subsidized to the tune of.... Last year's figures that I have are in excess of $10 million — $10,405,000. All of these figures are in your annual report. This year I would assume those figures are somewhat higher, with inflation.

The point I'm making is that you've reduced the subsidy to the Ferry Corporation by some 25.1 percent two years ago and increased the fares, and you still have the free ferries in the interior. I understand the case you're making, but I live in those areas, and you don't, and I have to face and talk to those people every day and explain to them why in some cases some of those ferries, which are really not required in the first

[ Page 3111 ]

place.... They are a convenience, and if I was the minister I probably would keep most of them there. That's not the point I'm making; the point I'm making is they are free.

You know very well, Mr. Minister, as do the people within your minister, that you did commission a report some four and a half to five years ago, a report that was never tabled in this House, although I did happen to see parts of it. One of the recommendations in that report was that tolls be placed on the interior freshwater ferries. I'm not sure that they should be. I'm not sure about that, because that wouldn't help us here on the freshwater ferries that you operate on the coast of British Columbia through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and/or the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

But what I'm saying is that if we can subsidize those ferries to that extent up here, when you are receiving a federal government subsidy to operate the ferries here, that subsidy, which goes into general revenues.... If you are talking to people up in Prince Rupert, people on the central and north coast, you will find that they are suggesting that $11.5 million a year — because I think that's what the subsidy is going to be this year from the federal government — should be applied directly to those north coast routes. We do know that that money goes into general revenue, and you told me last year and the year before and the year before: "It doesn't matter. We subsidize the corporation anyway, so the corporation is receiving that subsidy indirectly."

Mr. Minister, I've really only touched the tip of the iceberg here. I haven't discussed what role cabinet plays in the management of the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It certainly seems to me that Treasury Board has taken over the functions of the board of directors of that corporation. It seems to me there is direct interference from cabinet. You're a member of the board of directors. That's fair enough, and perhaps the way it should be. At least that way we can get some feedback in this Legislature and have somebody to talk to about these matters. Nonetheless, when I hear the chairman of the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation telling us that no, they can't reverse certain financial decisions because they have received the orders from the cabinet of the province of British Columbia — the government — that smacks to me of direct interference in the internal operations of a Crown corporation and of disregard for the economic needs of the people on the coast of British Columbia.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the following report: "Refunds Remissions Made Under Section 23, Taxation (Rural Area) Act, R.S. 1979, Ch. 400, During the Calendar Year 1983."

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.