[ Page 3899 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Social assistance rolls. Mr. Barrett –– 3900

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

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

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

Schroeder)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 3902

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3919

Mr. Stupich –– 3920

Mr. Cocke –– 3920

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3920

Mrs. Dailly –– 3921

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3921

Appendix –– 3922

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is with some sorrow that I rise today to inform the House of the passing this weekend of Ms. Phyllis Young, who was the MLA for Vancouver–Little Mountain between 1972 and 1975. Ms. Young, the first Minister of Consumer Affairs during our administration from 1972-75, was one of those rare MLAs who was able to reach across all sections of our society and touch people's lives in a way that will be fondly remembered by those who came in contact with her. It was an untimely death, as I suppose all deaths are. Ms. Young loved this institution, loved her work as a trade unionist and loved her job as a cabinet minister. She served the people of this province well, and she will be sadly missed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Leader of the Opposition in expressing, from our side and personally, shock and sadness at the sudden and early passing of Ms. Young. She was a worthy adversary in the Legislature. I knew her; I was on the opposition side. She did her job in this House and in her portfolio in her own inimitable style, which was to forge straight ahead. But outside the House, when the heat of political debate was over, she was always friendly to those of us in the opposition. She will be missed. It is untimely, and I associate myself fully with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a large crowd in the galleries today, and among them are 12 members of the Second Douglas Scout Troop, who are based in the municipality of Saanich and the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Their scoutmaster is Mr. Rick Turley. I trust that all members will welcome them on my behalf.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I think it would be unfortunate if we let introductions and comments pass at this first sitting following the great success recorded by the University of Victoria Vikings, who "solidified their position as one of the great amateur dynasties in Canadian sports history" over the weekend by winning an unprecedented fifth consecutive Canadian university men's basketball championship in Halifax. I think a number of us who spend time in this area have watched the Vikings over the years, and perhaps it will be possible for them to be invited to this chamber at some point in the near future.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make welcome a lady from my constituency, a director of our association and one who also serves the province in many other capacities, Mrs. Isabelle Chisholm.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow for everybody in this House it will be the first day of spring. But today it's the first and the continuing day of spring for the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), and I'd like all members to wish him a very, very happy birthday.

MR. STRACHAN: My best wishes to the senator.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today I'm pleased to introduce, from Prince George, the Hildebrandt family, Ken, Nina, Jason and Kenny, with Mr. Glen Whitehead; and the Allen family, Derrick, Marjorie and David. Will the House please welcome these guests of mine today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to welcome to the House today Bill Calder, along with Diane and their two children, Debbie and Mike. Along with Debbie and Mike is their friend Kevin Doll. I'd like the House to welcome them this afternoon.

Also in the gallery is the former mayor of Cranbrook and current chairman of the East Kootenay Community College board, Ty Colgur. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming him as well.

Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery is Mr. Stuart Lang, president of Crestbrook Forest Industries. I would like the House to especially welcome Mr. Lang, since his company has kept the doors of his operation open in Cranbrook and the East Kootenays during the difficult time in our economy. I want to assure him how much this House, the people of Kootenay and British Columbia appreciate that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming my constituency secretary Mrs. Haslam and her friend and my friend Mrs. Ling, who are in the gallery today.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a fine example of the kind of woman that helped this country of Canada and B.C. Through success and adversity she has always managed to keep her balance. She is a lady who never lost sight of the fact that you have to live within your means, and she is a lady whose birthday it is today — Mrs. W. Russell S. Fraser, my mother. Would the House please welcome her.

MR. COCKE: I have been informed that we have two people in the House today who have ringing in their ears. They are the Manitoba House Leader, Mr. Anstett, and the opposition House Leader, Mr. Enns. I would like the House to welcome them.

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

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

I have some constituents who have travelled on the way from Langley to come and visit with us today, the Macdonald family: Mr. Gene Macdonald, his wife Annee, and their four children Erin, Shannon, Gene and Angus. Gene Macdonald is the principal at D. W. Poppy Junior Secondary School in Langley, and he is also a member of the Langley Memorial

[ Page 3900 ]

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

[2:15]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is John Ross, the former mayor of Armstrong and currently a director of Okanagan College. He is accompanied by his son Jarrett. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ROLLS

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Could she inform the House as to the number of people in British Columbia who are now on social assistance, in terms of the last time and date that she received the total from her ministry?

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House what percentage of citizens of this province now rely on social assistance as their primary source of income?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, again, in order to be accurate, I'd prefer to take the question as notice. A question such as that, which requires specifics, can of course be placed on the order paper, and specific answers could be provided.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the instruction from the minister. I suppose the bills these people have to pay could be placed on the order paper as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not she knows that at the present time we have the largest number of people on welfare in British Columbia — in relative terms as well as in whole numbers — since the Great Depression.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware that Canada has the greatest number of people on income assistance since the Depression. I am also aware that there is very great difficulty in this province for those who are on income assistance. It's been common knowledge for some time in the province and in this nation — in fact, in any part of the world where the world recession has taken its toll.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House what specific action she has taken as a cabinet minister to alleviate the acknowledged hardship to these people which she has spoken of? That has been increased by the fact that some 91,000 British Columbians lost their jobs last year alone. What specific action has she taken — or is she taking — in her department to alleviate this hardship?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that the Ministry of Human Resources' responsibility is to provide assistance to those who find themselves in such difficult circumstances, and we have done that with a very good program. It is a program which has assisted our people to become independent; rehabilitation services have been provided in order to get them into a different train of work in some cases, or to upgrade their education in other cases. But the basic commitment of this ministry is to provide help in time of need.

The member did not ask what the government has done; he specifically asked what the Ministry of Human Resources has done. Speaking in my other capacity as minister responsible for rapid transit, many jobs have been created through our new ALRT project. In fact it now reaches, with the extension to Surrey, 7,500 man-years of work. If the member wanted me to enlarge on that, or wanted any other members of our government to be specific.... We certainly have, in direct jobs from ALRT, 7,500, and in indirect, 7,500, for a total of 15,000 jobs created.

In British Columbia Place we have 40,000 construction jobs over a 20-year period on the drawing board and already in place; 16,082 part-time annual jobs have been created. In Expo 86 there will be a total of 49,300 jobs created. The Ministry of Highways and Transportation in the capital construction projects.... I would ask the member to ask the question of those members responsible for northeast and southeast coal, rail and highways expansion, and building throughout the province. It's most effective, Mr. Speaker.

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

I asked the minister what she has done specifically, as a minister, to alleviate the situation of rapidly rising unemployment. I am pleased to hear that the minister knows the numbers of all the jobs alleged to be created by these projects, but I am at a loss to explain why the minister can't tell us how many people are on welfare. I ask the minister again: of the jobs created by the ALRT project, how many will be taken by welfare recipients?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the intimation left on the floor of this assembly by the words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, I did not say I did not know the approximate number, but that I did not want to give a figure which that member, outside of this House or in speeches in the next few weeks, would then quote as being incorrect — or any other member of the opposition.

Secondly, if the member, who has been in this House a very long time, would analyze the responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources — and the question was asked of the Minister of Human Resources.... The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it's the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources to provide services for senior citizens, for people who have to come to the ministry for income assistance, for people who require Pharmacare services and many other services. I know the member would not want me to reiterate them on the floor of the House and waste the time of question period. But he also knows that this minister is not responsible, in this ministry, for job creation; it is responsible, however, for assisting people who require rehabilitation to assist them to have independence. This Ministry of Human Resources, I suggest almost alone in Canada,

[ Page 3901 ]

has led the field in rehabilitation for income assistance recipients.

When the member, who himself has come out of the social worker field, asks me to respond on how many on income assistance will find jobs in the ALRT or any other project which the government has initiated in this province, let me say that that either shows a complete lack of understanding of social work in the province, or else is an attempt by that member to try to embarrass this minister or this ministry in some way. Mr. Speaker, I will not in any way.... I believe that member does know that this ministry does assist people who are on income assistance to find work, and also to become independent. Many people come to us who have been in traditional jobs; they are being trained to take other jobs when those have disappeared. Yes, we help them in a temporary way.

What I don't believe any member of this House really understands in a positive way is the turnover in income assistance in this province. In fact, more than 50 percent of those who are under 25 years of age — for which group we have recently made some changes — are only on income assistance for one month; the balance of them, almost 80 percent of the total, are off income assistance in two months. So the turnover is very quick. We must be doing something right. We're finding jobs and getting them into positions.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would never attempt to embarrass the minister or the government. They're doing a far better job than I could ever do, simply being there every day.

I ask my last question of the minister: in the light of the statement made to this chamber that her department is attempting to rehabilitate people who are on social assistance, can she explain why the rehabilitation officers in her department will be redeployed as of June 1 this year?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member will have to be more specific. In July of last year we did make some announcements that our staff of 6,000 would be decreased by some 600. There are some rehabilitative services within that. A very few will be placed elsewhere in the government or elsewhere in the Ministry of Human Resources, or in some cases they will not have their job. But that does not mean that our rehabilitative services have been cancelled — nor will they be — any more than it means that our war against child abuse is cancelled. Thirteen members, some of whom were secretarial staff, are no longer in the special team in the city of Vancouver. I know what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do, but it won't wash. The facts stand for themselves: we are rehabilitating people; we are getting them back into the workstream. We are assisting all we can, because that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the minister this question, and I will repeat it. At a time of high unemployment and after the minister informed this House that rehabilitation officers are doing their job, why are the rehabilitation officers being redeployed? Why are there fewer officers now and why are there going to be fewer on June 1 when there are more people on welfare in this province than since the Great Depression? Why?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member leaves the impression that there are hundreds of rehabilitation officers being redeployed from their positions. Of staff reductions that have already taken place in the ministry's headquarters, including all of our ministry's headquarters, there are one or two positions that have been redeployed that come under the category of rehabilitation. So I don't know if the member is making a case for two or three people, but I'd be very glad to look into it if he is.

MR. BARRETT: I think you should.

[2:30]

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer a number of questions that I took as notice about a week ago. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) asked me a series of questions about the hiring practices of Quintette Coal. I'm sorry he isn't in the House but I know Hansard will be available to him.

He asked whether Quintette was hiring people from outside British Columbia. I’ve had my ministry do exhaustive testing with Quintette and with the ministry itself, and we've determined that it is not the company's policy to hire outside of British Columbia. It is the company's policy to hire British Columbians first. No recruitment has taken place in eastern Canada or in any other part of Canada at this time, nor does the company intend to if they can get their people from British Columbia.

The mine presently employs 1,000 people, and about 75 percent of those 1,000 are British Columbians. They expect to hire another 600 before the end of this calendar year. There will be a new recruiting campaign started within the next couple of weeks. They'll be advertising in B.C. newspapers for new employees. They're particularly looking for heavy-duty mechanics, millwrights and industrial electricians –– 600 more jobs to add to the list that was given by the Minister of Human Resources.

One of the other questions from the member for North Island was whether the minister was aware that there were many heavy equipment operators and mechanics in British Columbia who have been refused employment by Quintette Coal. I asked the member to provide me with details and evidence of that, and at least to this point in time he has not been able to do that. The company denies that and says it has hired every suitable person who has applied.

The number of applicants has been drying up recently because it is not easy to get people to take permanent jobs in remote mine locations. The company's doing some other things to try to help that, including a very generous housing policy where employees can get a house for a 3 percent deposit; they pay the going rate for the mortgage on the first mortgage, but the company gives them a 7 percent second mortgage, forgivable over five years, in an attempt to solve that problem.

In answer to the other question, the company did file a manpower plan with the Ministry of Labour, and my officials tell me that the company is living up to the terms of that plan in all respects, even as far as training is concerned. Almost one-third of the maintenance workforce at the mine are apprentices. That's a very high rate, especially given the present economic situation.

[ Page 3902 ]

We will, of course, be keeping close tabs on this as hiring continues for the rest of the year, and I'm sure that the member for North Island will wish to ask further questions as time goes on. We will also be keeping in close contact with Canada Employment to ensure that Canada Employment is not relocating people from the east to British Columbia and paying a relocation allowance to do so.

AUTOMATIZED TELEPHONE SOLICITING

HON. MR. McGEER: Some days ago I undertook to bring back to the House information as soon as I had something positive to report on the subject of telepests. I'm sorry the member from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) isn't here. Monday is a difficult day for opposition attendance, but I did undertake to bring a reply at the earliest possible moment.

As members know, we have had little success in dealing with the CRTC, which has jurisdiction over the telephone company. But my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) may be able to come to the rescue of people in British Columbia, because he believes that this Legislature may have authority under section 4 of the Trade Practice Act, dealing with unconscionable transactions. That was the case where somebody needing a telephone in an emergency was connected to one of these computer dialing systems. The government has made it clear — with the support of the opposition, I would take it — that it considers this a most odious practice and will seek from the companies voluntary cessation of the practice. But the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is prepared to take further action, as he'll make clear after question period. I would take it that if neither of these methods is effective, the opposition would be strongly in support of the government giving the Legislature authority to deal with the matter.

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

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

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

It's seems like it was only six or eight days ago — although I'm sure it's perhaps four or five weeks — that we stood to defend the estimates of the department of agriculture for the fiscal year which we are just concluding. It is a pleasure to stand now and present the estimates for the year 1984-85.

The year we have just concluded was not a banner year, but it was a year in which agriculture demonstrated some stability, which we couldn't see in many of the other sectors in the province. But it was also a year in which the returns from the market reflected the buyers' strength out there, both in the province and in the country. The yield in cash for products sold was less than anticipated, and as a result the draughts under the income insurance programs extensive. As a result, when you compare the dollars anticipated to be expended and the dollars actually expended for the fiscal year we have just concluded, you'll see the reflection of those added draughts.

For the new year we anticipate some stronger market returns, and as a result we have gone out on a limb, although I think everyone in the House understands that the financial support programs for agriculture are negotiable. That which is provided for is not necessarily a hard number. It may well be that the needs of the ministry will be in excess of what has been anticipated. But I think that the numbers you see before you give you an indication of what the ministry feels can be accomplished in this year. It's optimistic. I am trusting, along with the ministry, that it actually happens.

One of the major industries in the agricultural sector is the beef industry, and the indicators from south of the border and from the rest of Canada say that prices in the beef industry should be more firm this year than they were last. As a result, we'll see some recovery in that sector.

The fruit industry had perhaps one of its lowest years, when we think in terms of market return. We have focused some attention from the ministry, and have tried to muster some more attention in the industry itself, on marketing. We believe that for the year which we are about to begin, the fruit industry will show some recovery as well.

In the ministry itself, I have to say with some pride that we undertook to contribute to the government's stated intention to reduce the size and cost of government. In the year just concluded, we really were not participants when it came to actual cost savings, as you can tell by the bottom line. But in any event, this year we wish to participate; there will be the rounding out of some of the programs. Rather than trying to have a straight-line reduction across the ministry, by which some programs with perhaps only a limited number of personnel might be affected and the program itself not be affected, I have suggested that we look at programs and identify the one which we would love to keep, and for which we even see a need and a desire, but a program that perhaps during tough times we can do without. Identify the program, eliminate that program, and as a result leave the rest of the programs as much as possible intact. This is what we have tried to accomplish. I don't know that we have done a one hundred percent job on it; as we go through the fiscal year it may well be that we'll have to suggest some adjustments.

Identified as an area for direct savings is Tranquille Farm, for instance, where we've identified some dollars that can be saved. We have identified dollars which can be saved in brand inspection and in veterinary inspection. We have identified a few dollars which can be saved because this year we have a lesser demand on the interest rates that are payable. We have also initiated, under the farm income insurance program, an innovative way in which we believe the industry can strive for excellence. For instance, in the fruit industry, under the previous program the same amount of benefit was derived from the farm income insurance program whether the product that you were producing was fancy/extra fancy on one end of the scale or culls on the other end of the scale. We have negotiated with the industry and have been able to come up with what we believe is a minimal saving by encouraging that sector to strive for the fancy and the extra fancy, and that portion that is the lowest part of the quality produced, which is really not being used for primary market return, will no longer qualify under the farm income insurance program.

[ Page 3903 ]

But what I am most happy to report to the members of the House is that in dealing with the farm community itself there is an understanding that 1982 and 1983, and perhaps 1984, are not the kind of years in which we can expect boom-time returns — and no one understands it better than they. I have been encouraged by their willingness to sit down to discuss the problems, to negotiate and say: "Yes, we must try to do a little better." And it doesn't make any difference whether you talk about the milk industry, the poultry industry, beef or vegetables; there is a spirit of cooperation that's out there for which I am thankful. It makes it very easy to work in my ministry, and I want to do everything in my power to encourage that spirit of understanding. I think increasingly the industry is coming to recognize, without somebody having to stand up and wave a flag, that this minister is interested in the success of agriculture, and I think their own words express it best: "This minister is a minister for agriculture and not just the Minister of Agriculture." I don't know that I really deserve that, but I've heard it out there, and it does make the job just a little easier.

The approach that I have taken, which I hope meets with the members' approval, is first simply to have an open door at my office — where I try to spend as little time as possible — so that anyone from any sector of the agriculture community can come to discuss their problems frankly, and yet with some measure of confidentiality, so that we can find out what is really their analysis of any problem in the industry. Secondly, I have adopted the practice of simply going out to where they are and taking a look at the status of their sector. It's tough to maintain a balance; I know there are some who would sooner have me there, ready to pick up the phone when it rings, but there are others who seem to appreciate the fact that there is very little growing on my desk and that most of agriculture takes place somewhere out there. On an increasing basis, that's the approach I'd like to take; I hope it meets with your approval.

[2:45]

The general direction — in these opening remarks I have to speak only in generalities — of the ministry is going to be one in which we focus not only on quality production but on access to the market of that production. We are actually going to be focusing on the marketing and the creating of markets for our product. We produce good stuff. We have a good quality farm product, second to none. The concentration has long been on production and quality production. Since my coming to the ministry, I have tried to encourage the various sectors to think not in terms of just getting the stuff out the front gate, but rather to think of how this product eventually finds its way to the consumer. If we have the entire chain thinking — you heard me say this when I last produced my estimates — of how best to get the product to the consumer at the best possible price, then I think that the entire chain will work that much better. That will be the general direction.

Management. We are anticipating more seminars, the kind of which we've already had one; they are to assist the farm economy if they have any difficulties. By the way, this is not to suggest that the difficulties are widespread. I think that the agricultural industry has demonstrated some sophistication in these matters. We are standing by to assist them in management technique and advice if we can give it. Management and marketing are two words that start with the letter M, and they will be the focus throughout this year.

With those few words, I want to hear the questions of the hon. critics. I will do my very, very best to bring the response to their questions.

MS. SANFORD: I thank the minister for his comments about his ministry. Flowing from those comments are certainly some questions that have come to mind, which I intend to deal with somewhat later this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, I would like to pursue one comment that the minister made and tie it in with discussion that took place last week, more in the area of food in this province rather than in the area of agricultural production as such. The minister said that we have good-quality farm production in British Columbia. I certainly agree with the minister on that. I would like to appeal to the minister to ensure that that good-quality product is made available to all of those people who now have to make do with less than a good-quality product, in that their nutritional needs are not being met in this province today.

Last week, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that since 1935 the U.S. Department of Agriculture has purchased surplus food produced in the United States. The budget for that this year is somewhere around $17 billion to $18 billion. This is food purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and made available to infants, children and people on low incomes who cannot be expected to have a high nutritional standard, based on the income that they have.

As a result of the concern of a representative from Ohio, Dennis E. Eckart, in the House of Representatives.... I certainly would refer this particular report to the minister's attention, because he did express some interest in the concept that I was advancing last week with respect to the purchase of surplus foods in British Columbia to be distributed to those people who are now lining up at soup kitchens and are attending food banks. Sometimes they find that the food bank itself has run out of food for distribution. Representative Eckart asked that the U.S. General Accounting Office in Washington, D.C. do a report for him on food and food distribution in the United States. The title of this report is "Public and Private Efforts to Feed America's Poor." The General Accounting Office has determined that in the United States about 20 percent of all food produced is lost or wasted annually. I think that's very significant, Mr. Chairman. Some 137 million tonnes of food valued at $31 billion is wasted or lost annually in the United States. The General Accounting Office has also determined that we have lost an opportunity to feed some 49 million people who could have been fed — this goes way back to 1974, mind you — from lost food grain, meat, sugar, oil, seeds, vegetables, fruits and nuts in the United States.

I recognize that the surpluses that occur in some parts of the United States do not occur in British Columbia. Nonetheless, here in British Columbia we know there are people who are not being adequately fed. We know that the income that is available to them through the Ministry of Human Resources is inadequate to ensure that they have a nutritionally balanced diet. We know that the Ministry of Human Resources officers — that is, the social workers themselves — are referring their clients who come to them toward the end of the month, when the social assistance recipients tell their workers that they have run out of food money, to the food banks and soup kitchens. We know that that situation exists in British Columbia today. We also know that the sale of fluid milk in the province last year was some six million litres down from what it was the previous year. That means only one thing: not that

[ Page 3904 ]

the pattern has changed in terms of consumption, that people are now consuming other products, but simply that the cost is such to those people on low income that they cannot afford to purchase the same amount of milk as they did in previous years. To a large extent, they are what are called the new poor in this particular report. These are people who've never had to face the prospect of lining up at a food bank or soup kitchen.

This government has an obligation to those people who elected them to ensure that their basic food requirements are met. They can do no less. We know that the income to those people in receipt of Human Resources assistance is inadequate. We know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has done absolutely no research into the nutritional value of food. He admitted that in the Legislature last week. We know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has said: "While it sounds like a great idea, we don't have any money. My budget has no money to purchase the surplus food that does exist in this province from time to time. We certainly will consider the idea." This means only one thing: we're going to have to wait for yet another year — and who knows what the soup kitchens and food banks are going to be like at the end of another year — for any kind of action on the part of that government, unless they rethink their position with respect to the purchase of food.

I would like to refer again to this report, because I think it bears very significantly on what is happening here in British Columbia today. Even in the United States — where they have been spending $18 billion a year purchasing surplus food and distributing it through various ways and means, including food stamps, lunches at schools, and organizations such as church groups — according to this report put out by the General Accounting Office, they do not have a national hunger count as such. One of the recommendations of this report is that an attempt be made to do a national hunger count, to determine how many people in the United States — in the midst of the greatest wealth in the entire world — are actually hungry, or at least malnourished, even if their stomachs are full.

I'll quote directly from the report: "Researchers, attempting to document hunger in the city of Chicago, Illinois, in the latter 1970s similarly concluded that it is difficult to assess with precision the numbers of people who are hungry. The researchers observed that hunger exists but that it is pervasive, and that there are large numbers of needy people who are not visible to the system." The same applies here in British Columbia. It applies more today than it ever has, because of the fact that we have outrageously high unemployment rates and ever-increasing lineups at Human Resources offices, soup kitchens and food banks.

The National Council of Churches' Working Group on Domestic Hunger and Poverty is recognized as one of the chief barometers of private sector food programs. Its director was quoted in December 1982 as saying: "The hunger problem nationally is three times, and in some places four times, worse than it was a year ago. Every group I talk to is up that high, and that's 106 of them: some direct soup kitchens and some emergency food cupboards, from Maine to California." The same thing is happening here, where the levels of hunger — that is, those people who appear to get emergency food assistance — has doubled and tripled. The same thing is happening here in British Columbia. It's appalling that this government, in response to an idea which the minister himself said was a good one, is not prepared to take any action whatsoever to ensure that the surplus food that is produced here in British Columbia is at least made available to those people who are lining up at the food banks and soup kitchens. What they've done instead is cut back on the money available for food to those people under the age of 25. They've frozen the rates for the last two years in terms of the ability to purchase food.

I'm going to quote again from this report done at the behest of Representative Eckart, who was concerned about food and hunger in the United States:

"As the number of people seeking food assistance has increased throughout the United States, one prevalent observation is that the profile of those seeking assistance at emergency food centers has changed. No longer are food centers serving only their traditional clientele of the chronically poor, derelicts, alcoholics and mentally ill persons who typically live on the streets and who most probably will be in need no matter what happens in the economy. Today many organizations report that a mounting number of 'new poor' are contributing to the increasing numbers seeking assistance at many emergency shelters and food centers. This breed of 'new poor' is made up of individuals who were employed and perhaps financially stable just a short time ago."

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

"As contrasted with the chronically poor, more of them are members of families, young and able-bodied, and have homes in the suburbs. They now find themselves without work, with unemployment benefits...."

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

[3:00]

One of the things that this report noted — and this has also been noted certainly by members in the opposition who have tended the food banks and have seen what is happening in terms of the distribution of food — is that the new poor are very embarrassed at having to go and line up for a bag of food. Imagine their embarrassment, having stood in line, to find that the food is now all gone because the food bank has run out of food. That has happened in British Columbia on many occasions.

I'm quoting from the report again: "Many of the 'new poor' are proud and have a distaste for accepting handouts. However, the Wall Street Journal reported in January 1983 that 'as the nation's recession lingers, more families are swallowing their pride and taking handouts.'" These are not people who are trying to go and take advantage of the system. These are people in genuine need who have to swallow their pride in order to go there to get the food they need to feed their families. Yet this government has refused to make money available to purchase surplus products to assist farmers. This minister says that he is a minister for agriculture, not of agriculture. If that's the case, then surely he would ensure that every bit of food that's produced in this province by those farmers is purchased and distributed to those people who need food. It is a very unusual circumstance. We didn't think that it was going to become like this in British Columbia. Since July of 1983, when they introduced that new budget, the situation has become absolutely desperate for so many people. This is a very minor request that we are making on this side of the House. There were surplus vegetables

[ Page 3905 ]

ploughed under right here in the Saanich Peninsula — excellent vegetables that were fed to cattle because there was no market for them.

If the minister was interested in the basic nutrition of people, he would make sure that fluid milk consumption remained the same, even though the surplus milk that is now produced is sent off for industrial production. He would ensure that those fluid milk quotas stayed the same so that people were able to retain that basic nutrition. It's one of the best foods available, and we had a six-million-litre drop in sales last year. That was because people couldn't afford it.

There are existing food banks; there is a vehicle through which this food could be distributed now. I know that if there were more food available, other food banks would be established in this province, because the whole province is certainly not covered at the moment. We have good-quality farm production, according to the minister. We have farmers who need to sell their product, who from time to time have to plough it under or dump it or feed it to the cattle or ship it to the United States for some kind of processing. Why doesn't the government purchase the present quota of fluid milk now, and ensure that it is retained at last year's level, rather than have consumption drop by six million litres? Why doesn't the government purchase the surplus vegetables and fruit and make them available?

I think government has an obligation. If it can't provide employment, if it can't in any way assist people in terms of giving them some hope for the future, giving young people some hope that there is something for them in this province — some kind of planning, some kind of hope for the future; I don't know how else to word it, Mr. Chairman — then surely the least it can do is ensure that the basic nutritional needs of people are met in B.C. So far they have not been prepared to adopt that policy.

If they don't have any funds to purchase food for distribution through the food banks.... Let me remind you that there is absolutely no provincial funding now for those food banks. They are all staffed by volunteers — from the church groups, from the trade unions — and those food banks rely on donations in order to keep people fed in this province. At the same time we have a farming community which, because it is unable to sell its product from time to time, has to plough it under. It doesn't make any sense at all. If the government doesn't have that kind of money available now, as the minister suggested the other day, then surely the Minister of Agriculture and Food could speak to his colleague sitting down there, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), get him out to collect the money that is due to them from the stumpage rates that have not been collected, and use that money. It is not in the budget now. The minister says he hasn't budgeted for that food. Collect that money and use it to purchase food. Why not? Surely the government could cut down on some of its flights or some of its advertising. I am just making some suggestions to this minister as to where he might find that money that he says he doesn't have at the moment. Does B.C. Rail really need all of those $470 million, Mr. Chairman? I know you're going to object very soon because I'm making suggestions as to how we can buy food in this province for those people who are hungry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate the direction of your debate. However we have to restrict our debate during estimates to the minister whose estimates are before us and his administrative actions only. Debate as it pertains to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food........

MS. SANFORD: I'm trying to help that minister get some more money so he can buy food for food banks. He says he doesn't have it. It's very simple, Mr. Chairman. It's there and it's available if they want to make it available.

Interjection.

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

MS. SANFORD: Did that minister say something like "socialist money"? I didn't quite hear what he said, but I'm sure that he's not very interested in ensuring that those people who are hungry get the food they require.

The other thing this minister has indicated is that he has done no research whatsoever into the nutritional value of the food basket. The food basket is a basket of various food items that are priced every month so that we have an idea of what's happening to food prices in British Columbia. We don't know what the food value of that basket is. The ministry doesn't know and the people who first drew up the food basket don't know what's contained in it in terms of nutrition. So I'm going to make a suggestion to the minister that he might consider at this stage. I think this issue is so important at this time and the need is so urgent right now that I would request that the minister activate the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in this province and add to it representatives from the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Health, in order to look at food and its nutritional value in terms of the costs and the money available to those people on the lowest scale of income, and to determine how many people are hungry in this province, where those pockets of hunger are and how best the government can assist through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food through the purchase of surplus food from our farmers in ensuring that people who are now not receiving the nutrition they need — in fact are not even receiving enough food to eat — receive those minimum levels of food and nutrition.

The Minister of Agriculture has not activated the Committee on Agriculture since he has been minister. It seems to me that there's a whole area of his ministry here which has been neglected by him, according to his own admission last week about not doing any research on the nutritional value of the food produced and distributed here in British Columbia. Here's a chance for that committee to become activated and to give the government some advice on nutrition, food, its costs and the incomes some of these people must live under and yet try to feed their families from. This is an ideal time, and that committee should be activated now. The minister himself should take an interest in this subject and sit with the committee. I can assure you that those of us on this side of the Legislature would be more than pleased to devote as much time and effort as we can to work of a committee of that type. It's high time, the need is urgent, it's now, and I know that the money can be found.

At this stage I would like to hear some comments from the minister concerning some of the suggestions I've made regarding food and food banks, the distribution of food and surplus produce.

[ Page 3906 ]

[3:15]

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

She suggested perhaps a good model to follow would be the American model. She read several excerpts from a report. She talks about the U.S. model in which some $17 billion to $18 billion has been utilized to purchase surplus foods. When she last discussed this during a question period, I suggested that the suggestion she made was worthy of consideration. It would be nice if the Ministry of Agriculture had the same kind of latitude and authority as does the agricultural model in the U.S. As the member well knows, in the U.S. the authority for agriculture is vested in the federal government. That federal government has a program which is quite different from our own, in providing incentives for growth in the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, in the United States they pay you for not growing.

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

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yet that's the model that the member suggests we should follow. It's the program where they have surpluses, and the reason they have surpluses.... No, don't say the reason; say the indicator which gives you an idea as to how successful or unsuccessful their production incentives or disincentives are.... They are directly proportionate to the sizes of the surpluses that they have. And they do have surpluses. I can remember, not too many weeks ago, that they were giving away cheese by the box. There was nothing else they could do with it. They had to give it away. The amount of cheese that they had in stock was an indicator of the failure of their approach to incentives and disincentives for the production of food.

I have to tell you that in the province of British Columbia we do not have that kind of federal authority. I have to say, further, that even if we did have it, we would not be utilizing that kind of authority, not in this province, because we have a far better way of managing the production of food. It's not done by a government at all. A government simply lays down some guidelines, and the producer himself joins hands with the producer next to him. They form an association, and they themselves establish the association whereby they manage the supply of their product. And what's their record? The member has suggested several times that what I should be doing is taking the scarce dollars that I have in my ministry and buying surplus food. There's no surplus food in the province of British Columbia. Show me.

If you want to take milk, we produce 100 percent of our fluid milk needs. But we do not produce 100 percent of our processed milk needs. As a matter of fact, if I listen to my producers, they tell me that we produce about one-third of our processed milk. Now processed milk and milk start out the same way. It's the same stuff when you start; it's just that it's put down two different chutes. One is fluid milk and is for human consumption in its primary form. The other is processed milk. We have exactly 100 percent of our fluid milk needs. We don't have any surplus, because whatever we don't drink we put into processed milk products, and here we have only 33 percent of what we need. That's the record of the milk producers' associations in this province: a pretty skookum record. Where would I buy surplus milk in the province of British Columbia? Tell me. That's why, when the member suggested it, I said it's a suggestion worthy of consideration. I went right out there and started considering.

Eggs. I've talked to you about milk. Do we have a surplus of eggs in this province? The answer is no. We produce 95 percent of the eggs that we need. Do you want to eat apples? And only apples? Is that where your nutritional value is? I was telling you the other day, Mr. Chairman, my ministry does not have a mandate for the analyses of the various foods. We don't have the same structure as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has all kinds of things in its mandate, including the issuing of food stamps, which I'm going to talk about a little later. We have some surplus apples, if you want to eat those. We produce exactly 100 percent of the raspberries we need, and we sell the rest; we've got a good market for raspberries. But when it comes down to some of the other foods, do we have surpluses? Let me tell you: when it comes to pork, we produce about 25 percent of what we eat. When it comes to beef, we produce about 20 percent of what we eat. I don't see any surpluses there. We only produce 50 percent of the potatoes we eat. There's no surplus there. When it comes to turkeys and chickens, we produce 80 percent of what we eat. We produce approximately 50 percent of the vegetables we eat. We produce only 20 percent of the tomatoes that we eat.

The member suggests that we should be using the scarce dollars that we have for the Ministry of Agriculture and take over the mandate of the Minister of Human Resources and walk around and purchase these surpluses, which are non-existent, and make them available to those who are in need. Then she says that those who are the new poor are embarrassed by handouts. I think we've got a far better program. This is the way we do it, through the Ministry of Human Resources. Please, Mr. Chairman, don't rule me out of order now, because you didn't rule the member out of order when she asked the questions. I know that I'm not supposed to be doing this, but.... The Ministry of Human Resources — and I would support this — rather than further embarrass the new poor, makes available the funds, and then lets the individual, who is new poor or old poor, I don't care what kind of poor.... It gives them the decency and the dignity of being able to select the foods that they want. It's none of this Big Brother government that says: "Now here are turnips, and these turnips are so much potassium, nitrogen, water, sugar, and whatever else. You eat these turnips or else." None of that Big Brother stuff. Let the individual select for himself.

The other day the member had a good suggestion, which I believed should be considered. So I went out and I started considering. So far, I don't find a way in the province of British Columbia to put together that suggestion. In the first place, I couldn't find the surpluses. In the second place, I wouldn't have the money in my ministry to buy the surpluses if they existed. I think it is far better that we should have a supply-management program which ensures that the surpluses are not there. Please remember, it costs just as much to produce surpluses as it costs to produce the portion of our crop that is consumed, and to whatever degree we have surpluses hanging around, to that degree we have the new poor in the farming community. They produce produce which is not sold and they can't pay anybody for any of the costs of producing until the commodity is sold. No, I'm afraid that I come down heavy on the side of British Columbia. I think we have it better here.

[ Page 3907 ]

The member suggested food stamps. As I understand it, in the United States the Department of Agriculture is responsible for issuing food stamps. We don't have that mandate here, not under the Ministry of Agriculture, and that's the only ministry that I can speak for. I think that my first suggestion would stand here: that is, it is far better to issue the funds for the people in need through the Ministry of Human Resources and let them select their own food.

She talked about the dumping of food products and the ploughing under of foodstuffs on Vancouver Island. It didn't happen this year; it happened last year. I would encourage all people who have land that is being held in the land reserve for agricultural purposes, but who do not have, under a supply management program, the capacity to produce foodstuffs on that acreage.... I'm suggesting to them that they grow whatever they can on the acreage that they have, because there is absolutely nothing to keep them from selling that product at their own farm gate. The only time food is dumped at all is when there is too much perishable food available to the market at any given time. The market cannot absorb all of it at once, and it will perish. But if there are those who wish to time the growing of their product so that they can bring it onstream at such a time as there is demand for it before it perishes, God bless them. I'm encouraging them to grow it and sell it right out of the farm gate.

She talked about organizing and initiating some activities for the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I think the member — who perhaps has been nominated by her caucus to be a member of that Select Standing Committee on Agriculture — has a notice on her desk which says that the organization of that committee will take place some time this week; I'm sure that's the case. So I'm happy to announce, Madam Member, that you will not be disappointed in that regard.

That takes me to the bottom of her suggestions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, some latitude was allowed the minister and the member for Comox with respect to this debate and the implications and impact on other ministries, but I think the committee would be well served now if we could stick to the administrative actions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

MS. SANFORD: Food certainly is part of the administrative responsibility of the minister. I did not, Mr. Chairman, recommend that we adopt a system of food stamps; I did not recommend that we adopt a system similar to that in the United States. I certainly do not at any time advocate that we pay farmers not to grow food, which is happening in the United States and which has happened in Canada from time to time. I would much prefer that people did not have to line up at soup kitchens and food banks. I would much prefer that the people in this province had work; that they had jobs and were able to retain their dignity. I would much prefer that the income available to them when they've lost their jobs was sufficient for them to feed their families so they don't have to line up at food banks. Mr. Chairman, it is this government's economy, this government's approach to economics in this province, that has resulted in the lineups at food banks and soup kitchens.

The only thing I'm trying to do at this stage — aside from condemning them at every point I can in terms of their approach to the economy — is to ensure that those people who do have to line up, who are put in that position because of your policies, your government and your adherence to that right-wing economic policy.... That's what I'm trying to do here today.

[3:30]

I'm going to read from a couple of articles in newspapers last fall. The Times-Colonist, September 3, says one farmer got rid of nearly 15 acres of broccoli; another plowed under nearly four acres of head lettuce; 65 hectares of cabbages were ploughed under; and so on and so on. Storage warehouses: 3,000 cases of tomatoes, 1,500 cases of cucumbers, sitting idle with no buyers in sight. All of these are from various newspapers.

What I'm saying is that from time to time there are surpluses. If we're going to ensure that there won't be any cutbacks in the fluid-milk quotas, then they're going to have to retain...they're going to have to be able to produce and sell as fluid milk the quotas that have been assigned to them for fluid-milk quotas. If they continue to drop, then the quotas will be dropped, and if that's what the minister wants, that's what will happen.

The minister is saying: "Oh. we can't possibly purchase food; we're not structured the way they are in the United States, so that eliminates us" — end of problem. Too bad if they run out of food at food banks; too bad if people aren't getting enough to eat; too bad if the nutritional levels are not being met in this province. The Minister of Food sits over there and says: "We are not structured the way they are in the United States, so therefore we can't possibly buy extra food and make sure that the people lined up at the food banks are not turned away because they've run out of food." Volunteers are staffing those places, Mr. Chairman — you don't have to pay anybody to do it — and I've suggested ways in which the minister could get additional moneys in order to ensure that that surplus food is purchased. But I'm not going to spend any more time on that; the only thing I'm going to say is that the excuses advanced by this minister are very feeble indeed, and I'll leave it at that.

Getting on to other aspects of this budget, Mr. Chairman, one area in which we have seen the biggest cut in terms of the estimated expenditures for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the financial assistance programs. I have a number of questions I wish to pose to the minister with respect to that.

The farm income insurance program stays pretty well in place, the same as it was before. But we have a $7 million cut in the ARDSA and interest reimbursement programs. The ARDSA fund, for those of you who are not aware, is a federal-provincial program. It is now finished, in that it has not been renewed. There will still be funds expended from that program until the end of October of this year. I would assume that the ARDSA money is being cut to about $3 million from $6 million last year. I would like to ask the minister about the projects which will be unfinished when the ARDSA money finally runs out. Half a fence is not very valuable, Mr. Chairman. If people have been able to construct only half a fence under the ARDSA program and then find that the money has run out, obviously that money has been wasted. Regarding ARDSA funding, the same applies to a number of other projects in the province.

I know this government is now negotiating with the federal government on a new program — they're going to entitle this one the ERDA program. I would like to know what sort of projects will be funded under that program and whether or not it will in fact replace the ARDSA program to a

[ Page 3908 ]

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

The other thing the minister mentioned was that they anticipate that they're not going to be spending as much money in the interest reimbursement program. That, I assume, would be because of interest rates dropping. But the amount of money available has been cut in half.  To me, that must mean some changes in the interest reimbursement program. It must mean that either the $10,000 level has been reduced or the interest rates themselves are somehow going to have to reflect the cuts in the moneys in that particular program. I would like some information on that as well.

I don't think the estimates that we have before us in any way reflect the final understanding that the ministry people and the minister himself had with respect to the budgeted amounts of money that would be available under this ministry this year. As I understand it, the final form that the ministry people saw was quite different from what we have before us today. I don't know what happened in the interim, but obviously something happened that surprised everybody in the ministry. As a result, a lot of staff people still don't know where the moneys are going to be expended or where the staff cuts are going to be, and so on. I would like to ask the minister, with respect to staff cuts specifically.... Last year we had 594 people on staff; it's down to 508 this year. In his opening remarks the minister mentioned that there would be some cuts in brand inspections. I don't know if that means that there will be 24 people cut from that particular program. Could the minister advise me how many people are going to be cut from that program? Could the minister also advise me whether or not the positions in the dairy industry — lab technicians and inspectors — are also part of that cut from 594 to 508? By the way, a few years ago — maybe three or four — the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture was about 725; it's now down to 508. It's been cut quite significantly.

There have been discussions between ministry officials and the dairy industry itself with respect to the industry taking over some of the jobs now being done by lab technicians and inspectors. We're talking about some 30 positions. The dairy people have just had notice that they are facing a huge increase in the fees charged them for these particular services. Are there going to be cuts this year in the dairy section — in other words, lab technicians and inspectors? Is the increase supposed to cover the people that are going to be remaining on staff? What is the situation there? I would like to know, and I certainly know that the people in the dairy industry would like to know at this stage what is happening to them.

I also wish to question the tendency of this government to privatize so many of the inspections in the various ministries. Here is another example where we are going to ask the dairy industry itself to, in effect, police itself by doing its own inspection and by taking care of its own lab work. I think we are running some risk in that, just as we are running a risk in the forest industry by allowing the corporations to do more and more policing of themselves rather than having governmental people keeping an eye on things in the interest of the public.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Aye.

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

Mr. Chairman, under the deputy minister's office, we are seeing a $200,000 cut. The minister, I think, recognizes that most of that money normally would go to support fall fairs in the province. I am very concerned about a cut of that size to the various fall fairs throughout the province, because if anything ensures that agriculture is promoted in this province, it's those local fairs. There is a great interest in them. We in the Courtenay area have just had the fall fair reactivated after a number of years when nothing was happening in that area. There was tremendous interest again this year. I think that for the minister at this time to slash the funding for fall fairs, which are one of the best avenues for promoting agriculture in this province, means that he is not really the minister for agriculture after all. He is prepared to cut and slash wherever he sees fit, regardless of the impact it might have on the agricultural community.

There has been a small amount of money available every year for research at the University of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister would answer whether or not that has been cut this year, and whether the University of British Columbia will not receive that very minimal amount — I think somewhere around $30,000 — for research to be done at UBC.

It was with a great deal of pride, some years ago, that we as a province made money available to assist developing countries. This was done through the Ministry of Agriculture. A special fund was established by W.A.C. Bennett, who felt that the least this province could do was to assist, in some way, the agricultural development in some of the emerging nations. What we're finding now is that not only is this minister not interested in making sure that the nutritional requirements of the people of British Columbia are met, but he shows no interest whatsoever in the aid to developing countries. There's a program that has virtually been wiped out by this government, and I think it is tragic indeed. We as British Columbians, as a whole, have a responsibility, obligation and duty to assist those countries that are still struggling to establish their own agricultural industry. Yet we find that that's another program that is being eliminated — chopped and neglected — by this government. I've asked a number of questions. Perhaps the minister would be willing to respond.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to remember them in the order in which they came.

She notes that the farm income insurance program is almost identical. We have tried to negotiate with the producers themselves, as I said earlier in my remarks, a new approach so that we would have an emphasis on quality production. In the fruit industry, as an example, we have negotiated that a part of the crop called culls no longer qualifies for financial assistance. If you compare the actual hard numbers, I think there are about $1 million worth of savings in the entire $32 million. I know that it looks approximately the same, but I wouldn't want it to look like the farmers aren't doing their share to try to exercise some savings. They are doing very well there.

[3:45]

Then she talks about the ARDSA program. Let me just review that program for the member. ARDSA was a five-year program. It was a $60 million program, but the $60 million was shared fifty-fifty between the two governments; our share was $30 million. So when we came to the draw on provincial funding, it amounted to something like $6 million

[ Page 3909 ]

a year. That program ran out something over a year ago. There was a subsidiary agreement which extended it by one year. The approvals process for that ARDSA program had a deadline. All approvals had to be in place by July 31 in order to qualify. However, the funding in that program still continues until October of this year. But there have been no new approvals since July of last year. There will be no new approvals until April 1 next year. Actually, there is a hiatus in the ARDSA program when the work catches up with the money. When it looks to you like there's a $7 million cut in the ARDSA program, in actual fact what's happening is that there is almost a year — from July until April — in which there is no new money appropriated. Therefore the only part of money that is appropriated for that year is what's left there, four months of a year. When you put it down on paper in a crude form it looks like that money is not there for that year but that some of it is. The actual fact is that there's going to be one full year without any ARDSA program at all. Do you see it there? It will look like there's an ARDSA program; the work will be going on. But when it actually comes to the appropriation, there is no new money available for one full year.

I have received authority from cabinet to proceed on a brand-new five-year program, and the negotiations are now going on with the federal government to see whether or not they wish to cooperate again, as they did last time, on a five-year program, and to contribute 50 percent of the cost. If they will match our dollars, we will have a new $60 million ARDSA program. That's my goal. We have our share, but we do not yet have the federal share. The early indications are that the federal government is willing to go along with the program, but that they don't want to go along with it on the same basis as last time because they didn't get enough credit across Canada for the work they did. They can't really lay that charge on our table, because wherever I went to open or announce a project we always took with us a representative. Although in many instances someone from the ministry was not available, someone from inside the province representing the minister was there. I don't like to appear like Mr. Nice Guy, but in those kinds of things I give the federal guy the first opportunity to speak; I recognize the fact that this is a 50 percent program and that as much credit needs to go to the federal government as to the provincial government. I have no hang-ups with that kind of thing. But across Canada, apparently, that isn't being done, so the federal government would like to have the kind of program where they have a higher profile. I don't give a hoot what kind of profile they need or must have; what I want is a new $60 million ARDSA program. We're working on it, and I hope that one day I can stand here and announce it.

The interest reimbursement program is affected. I suggested in my earlier remarks that this is one area where the industry, through its agency, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, suggested we might be able to find some savings. Interest is lower this year, and in order to effect a $3 million saving we had three choices. We could have a deductible, meaning that some of the ones that had smaller claims wouldn't get any reimbursement. I rejected that because we have people coming into the agricultural industry who would be affected adversely because they're still little producers. We could also lower the cap — there is presently, as you know, a $10,000 cap – but the fact is that some of the larger producers who are beyond the $10,000 cap are already being adversely affected, compared to the rest of the program, in that for whatever share is above $10,000, they're carrying the load for their entire interest charges. It looked to me as if the most sensible and equitable approach to take would be to adjust the interest level from what it used to be — 1 percent below prime — and make it prime. If you make it prime, it affects absolutely everybody the same way, and all five and a half — it's just a little over five and a half — thousand recipients remain participants in the program. It saves $3.1 million over the entire program, but at least it distributes it equitably across the spectrum. This is not any surprise. This was negotiated through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They had a request which I thought had some validity. They said: "This is not going to be a heavy year for interest. Could we take whatever money we can save this year, put it into a sinking fund and have it as a buffer for a year in which we might have heavy interest charges?" I think it's valid. The only problem is: what do you do with the sinking fund? I think it would be far better to have a commitment from government that says: "We'll take a second look at interest when interest rates are higher." I think that's probably the best route to go. But those are the facts on partial interest reimbursement.

She had a question on staff cuts. By and large, we have achieved our goals strictly through attrition. We have cut out a few programs in which everyone in the program disappeared with the program. Colony Farm is an example. Tranquille Farm will be a second example. I don't know if you're interested in the actual number of full-time equivalents or not, but in the brand inspection program there's a reduction of six people, because we are moving to a part-time program of brand inspection. This was done after negotiations with the cattlemen. So there are no surprises there.

In sales yards veterinary inspection there is a drop of three people. In dairy herd inspection there is no change. If you create a hiatus in that records program, then you lose a part of the records, and maybe exactly the part that you're depending on to do your analyses for the upgrading of dairy herds. So we are maintaining the dairy herd program, but we have increased the user fee to 55 percent of what it actually costs to run it. We have identified some overlap. We have a federal program — the ROP program — and we have the provincial program — the DHIS program. We're taking this fiscal year to negotiate with the federal people an amalgamation of those two programs, so that we can have one overall program which would be a better program and save us both duplication costs where there is duplication. There may well be a time in the future when the dairy people themselves would like to do what the brand inspection people would like to do, and that is to be responsible for that entire activity themselves. We haven't got that far yet, and I don't want to pre-announce something. But that's what the dairy people themselves are working toward.

The next question had to do with the fall fairs. The minister doesn't care about the fall fairs, she said. The grants to fairs and societies last fiscal year were $278,950. This year the grants to fairs and societies are $279,000 in round figures, which is $50 more. But the farmers' institutes have an increase. The Provincial Seed Fair is exactly what it was. The fairs and exhibitions association — and I think that's the one the member was concerned about — has an increase that is so slight you can't talk about it. It's gone up from $182,000 to $185,000. A number of womens' institutes have asked for the equivalent of decertification. There are fewer of them. Hence there is a reduction from $27,000 to $25,000 — I'm giving

[ Page 3910 ]

you round numbers. The SPCA has exactly the same number of dollars. The B.C. Ploughing Association has exactly the same; the sheep breeders, the same; the Lower Mainland Sheep Producers' Association, the same; the grape producers, the same; the chinchilla breeders, the same; VIDO, which is the veterinary thing, has exactly the same; the Society of Range Management has a slight increase of 10 percent; and Canadian Western Agribition is the same. In total, the grants to fairs and the grants to societies have received recognition identical to last year's. It may well be said that there should have been some cuts there, but I couldn't find it in my heart to make that kind of a recommendation. It's simple: we're holding the line on that.

If the member is interested in each of the individual fairs, I have the numbers for all of them. As you know, there are three or four different classifications. The Pacific National Exhibition gets $30,000. Then there are the class A fairs, which receive $10,000, and the class B fairs, which receive $6,000. The increases come whenever there is a reclassification. If the member wishes to have her fair receive an increased grant, simply have it reclassified into a higher fair. It would mean that you would have to display different things — you have to qualify. That's the way to get an increase. The dollar values for the classifications are exactly the same as last year.

You talked about the B.C. research at UBC. It's not $30,000; it's $150,000. There is no change.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I have to follow up on as a result of the minister's responses. Under ministry operations, deputy minister's office, we have seen a cut from $684,000 to $484,000. This is under "grants and contributions." I would like to know where those cuts are occurring. I see he's going to have some assistance in this.

Secondly, the minister talked about changing the farm income insurance program for the apple growers in order to encourage a higher quality. He said that the culls and the lesser grades would no longer be qualifying for farm income insurance.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Just culls.

[4:00]

MS. SANFORD: All right. Does that mean that there will be a general decrease in the amount of money that's available to the apple growers as a result of this? I know that when the changes were made.... For instance, the original formula was made based on 26,000 pounds per acre, as I understand it. When the formula was changed to include culls, the production level then went up to, I think, 30,000 pounds per acre, or some such figure. I am wondering how this affects the general pounds-per-acre figure in the formula that you're going to be drawing up. In other words, are the apple growers going to be penalized as a result of this? I know there has been a great fear among them that any change at this stage to eliminate anything out of that farm income insurance program would result in a lower income for them and lower payments to them. Of course the apple growers, of all people, could not afford that at this particular time.

The ARDSA program. The minister complimented himself on making sure that the federal government is always mentioned at any of these announcements. I think the federal government, though, is stinging about a whole lot of other things that they have contributed to and had no recognition for in this province. You may have mentioned the federal government's name, but I know that the federal government has been perturbed by other things, such as the rail cars, where they contributed money and received no recognition whatsoever.

What about the ERDA program? He did not mention it. This is a new program, as I understand it, and I would like to know what the minister is thinking on that. What negotiations are taking place and how does it compare with the old ARDSA? Will it replace ARDSA?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the first question had to do with the reduction in grants from $684,000 to $484,000. All local grants, as I have already shared with you, are approximately the same. Within a very few dollars, they are the same. The $200,000 savings is in the reduction in the aid to foreign countries for agricultural projects, and that's the kind of thing I really feel bad about.

MS. SANFORD: Aid to developing countries?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, aid to developing countries. I would much sooner increase the funds, but a time when we have to borrow money to run our own shop is a time when you have to look at that kind of a grant. It was reduced by $200,000, yes.

Apples. It used to be 26,000 pounds. According to the new formula, it is 30,000 pounds. The fear the member expresses which might be in the minds of the producers is not there — at least, it should not be there. They were at the negotiating table when this was talked about. It was negotiated; it was not imposed. Okay? As a result, through their representatives the industry itself — I shouldn't say welcomed — accepted the idea of: "Let's go for higher quality." There is a disincentive to better quality production when you get the same dollar per pound even if you have nothing but scabby apples. The industry at large.... Undoubtedly you will find individuals, maybe even pockets of growers, who would say: "You know, it's going to affect me. After all, it costs as much to grow a scabby apple as it does to grow a nice extra-fancy apple, so actually there should be the same benefit from the program." It was negotiated. It affects the overall program, as I said earlier. Were you listening? The overall program is some $32.6 million — not billion. It affects it by about $1 million. When you look at it on your sheets, you'll say it looks like it's almost the same, but it's about $1 million.

The ERDA program is the new federal program. It is a sort of umbrella program, under which the ARDSA program would be negotiated. That's their nomenclature, not ours; undoubtedly, when we negotiate a new program it will be called who knows what. I think the guidelines will be something similar to the ARDA that did exist.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be brief. We've had a lot of talk this afternoon about dollars where they relate to the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't have any problems in those areas, Mr. Minister. In fact, my constituents in Omineca are generally very happy with the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture is administered. The questions I wish to raise — and I do hope I can get some answers to the very serious questions that I have this afternoon — are the same as the questions raised on Friday in the estimates of the Minister

[ Page 3911 ]

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) where they relate to agricultural land.

Last Friday I was questioning that minister in regard to what is called the Vanderhoof Crown land plan. I would like to ask this minister: first, is he aware of the Vanderhoof Crown land plan? Secondly, is he aware of what that plan would do to the agricultural industry in one of the very important regions of this province? For a year now there has been a freeze on Crown land for agriculture in the Nechako Valley, which has been a detriment to the expansion of the agricultural industry within that area. I would suggest that should this plan be adopted — which heaven forbid I hope would never happen — there would be a lasting very detrimental effect on the agricultural industry in that area.

I raise the question at the same time of a similar plan in the Kispiox Valley, where the same thing is taking place. There is a move by the Ministry of Forests to take within its fold many thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land which it deems to be better used for forestry. On Friday in the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing I said — and I reiterate today — that certainly I have no quarrel with bettering our forestry capability in the province of British Columbia, particularly in the area I serve. But when I see figures such as those that I have from the Council of Forest Industries northern interior lumber sector in Prince George that indicate that in the Prince George forest district alone there are 8,235,700 hectares of land within the provincial forest just begging for silviculture treatment, I've really got to ask the question: why until such time as that land plus the area that has been logged and has not yet been planted, which is not in this figure, have been treated as far as silviculture is concerned...? It's a very real concern to my agricultural community. Again I say: should the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, as is the case with the Kispiox Crown land plan, be put in place, the agricultural industry would be at a standstill in those areas. There would be no more Crown land available for the expansion of the family farms and ranches in that particular area. Again I ask: is the minister aware of the plans? Is the minister, on behalf of the agricultural industry in this province, in favour of those plans?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I can only discuss, from my ministry's point of view, the overall and general policy of agricultural land and its use. I cannot discuss plans in this committee, whether they be settlement plans, regional plans or Crown land use plans. I would encourage the member to try to get that particular kind of information from the minister who is responsible. But surely to heaven I would be allowed an opinion on it, and maybe this is what I can express. As a general policy, we have a provision that land which has been identified by an agricultural producer — a farmer — as being land that has agricultural capability.... He applies for a Crown lease of that land. It's Crown land with agricultural capability. It's not designated that way by someone in an ivory tower but analyzed and assessed as having agricultural capability by a farmer — many times a farmer with adjacent private property. When that Crown lease is granted to that farmer, the land within the Crown lease then almost automatically forms part of the agricultural land reserve. In my humble opinion, that agricultural land reserve is then the best kind of insurance that any farmer could have that his land would be held for agricultural purposes. This is not to say that he would be using it for agricultural production immediately, but at least it would be held in perpetuity for that kind of production. That's the policy we adhere to, and it's the policy that is broadly subscribed to by the Environment and Land Use Committee. Indeed, every two or three months there are dozens of these kinds of applications. They are processed by successful leaseholders with an obvious view to one time owning the property held in the agricultural land reserve for agricultural use. If you ask me if I support that policy, the answer is yes.

[4:15]

MR. KEMPF: I'm certainly happy to hear that philosophy come from the Minister of Agriculture. But the concern I have — I think the minister should have that concern as well, Mr. Chairman — is that should this land, which is going to be earmarked as integrated forest management land within such a Crown land plan.... My concern is for that very situation not happening in the future. I have very good grounds for that concern. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine who for the past three years has been attempting to acquire a piece of Crown land for agriculture and has been consistently turned down by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing because it is suggested by that ministry that this piece of land is better left for wildlife management. I have a soft spot in my heart for wildlife management just as I do for forestry, but this piece of land is already in the agricultural land reserve, and yet he is told that he can't have it for agriculture because it's earmarked for another ministry's use.

I have extreme concern when I listen to the Minister of Agriculture talk about the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, because I really don't think that to this point, with all due respect, his ministry is aware of what these Crown land plans are doing or have the possibility of doing to agriculture in this province. I can certainly see a very real tragedy down the road in regard to the Vanderhoof area, the second most important agricultural area in this province outside the Peace River. It's an area whose success in agriculture depends on the acquisition of more agricultural lands to add to family farms. If the Vanderhoof Crown land plan is adopted — it's unfortunate that I can't show maps here in the chamber; I had the map with me last Friday — there is no more land for agriculture in the Nechako valley. It will all be earmarked: "integrated forest management."

The question I have of this minister, as I had of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and as I will have of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), is: why are we doing this to our agricultural community when we have literally millions of acres of land in the provincial forests of this province that we aren't treating properly as far as silviculture is concerned now? Why are we allowing that ministry to step outside of its boundaries and tie up even further land for forestry? As much as I'd like to see more forestry in our province, why don't they place their emphasis on the land already in the provincial forests rather than have them step outside and tie that land up, out of the reach of our agriculturalists — as the land has been in the Vanderhoof region, the Nechako Valley and the Kispiox Valley for the last year? I haven't had an answer to that question, and I'll not rest until I get an answer to that question from some minister in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the remarks of the minister at the beginning of his response to the last series of questions placed by the member for Omineca, but perhaps

[ Page 3912 ]

having embarked on commenting or offering personal opinions the minister might not mind proceeding in that vein.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: No, I don't plan on going outside of the rules which you, of course, are obligated to enforce, but I think what I can say to the member is that under my ministry we have responsibility for that land placed into our care and designated as agricultural land. We have a voracious appetite, and if we had our own way — and I want my deputy to close his ears right now because I wouldn't want to embarrass him — we would have every piece of property we could lay our hands on. As long as it could grow something, we would have it within our own little domain. The fact is, though, that we have several uses, all of which are going to take place on one common ground called the province of British Columbia, and I think that as long as land having agricultural capabilities is not alienated irretrievably in the future, and if we don't require it at the moment, then it would perhaps be generous of us to say that we'll allow some for wildlife and some.... After all, forestry — although I'm not permitted an opinion in that ministry — is long-term agriculture, isn't it? The only thing is that you have to commit land not for a one-year crop, but for an 80- to 120-year crop. If it is agricultural land, and we don't require it at the moment for agricultural production and can afford to assign it for one cycle to forestry, then I see nothing wrong with doing that, as long as we can assess it again at the end of the cycle, and if we require it for agriculture we can then make it available for agricultural leases. That's way, way out of my jurisdiction.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: I don't wish to carry that any further. I realize the constraints which the Minister of Agriculture is under in making the kinds of remarks that I'm sure he would like to make in regard to the Ministry of Forests embarking on a campaign to really take more than their share of land under their wing in the province. But I would like to ask this question, Mr. Chairman; again, I asked it last Friday in another minister's estimates. In a recent letter from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing I was told: "This land-use decision has been endorsed by the Vanderhoof Crown land planning process." I'd just like to know from the minister whether his ministry was part of that planning process.

While the minister is contemplating his response, there is one other question or subject that I'd like to approach, and here again I would like the feeling of the minister in regard to a situation that is going on in another minister's ministry. Nevertheless, the question has a great impact on the very people whom the Minister of Agriculture has under his ministry. I relate to the preclearing, or what I called on Friday the scorched-earth policy of the Ministry of Forests, where it relates to agricultural leases. For a number of years, particularly in the area which you and I serve, the only way in which an agriculturalist could afford to clear and pile and burn and cultivate and bring a new piece of land into production was to see a return for the logging of the timber that existed on the lease prior to application. The preclearing policy takes that possibility completely out of the hands of the agriculturalist. The government, in its wisdom, has deemed that that land should be precleared; in other words, that the merchantable timber should be logged and sold by the Crown to the industry, and that the land should be stumped and cleared prior to its being offered to the agriculturalist — and I say again, to the complete detriment of the agricultural industry.

For those who don't know, it takes a good five to eight years to bring a piece of land into proper production in the northern part of this province. Even then, Mr. Chairman, as you're very well aware, all the agriculturalist, farmer or rancher can expect from that piece of land is one crop yearly — not the two or three crops that can be found in the Okanagan or the lower mainland of this province, but one crop a year. It is very, very expensive for an individual to get into agriculture in the northern or north-central part of this province, and to take away the only means which that individual has to cover some of the costs of putting that land into production is a serious concern to me as the member for Omineca and to the agricultural industry in general in the area that I serve.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I appreciate the good advice that I am getting from the member and could perhaps be permitted an opinion in the absence of a real question there. What the Ministry of Agriculture is supporting is the concept of woodlot licences, where, if there is merchantable timber on a piece of property and that piece of property will eventually be used for agriculture, the merchantable timber be made available to an agriculturalist, and the value of that timber will be used in the clearing of that land. So long as stumpage is paid on the merchantable timber, the revenue coffers of the provincial government do not suffer, yet the land becomes available to the farmer and is put into production at a much lower cost per acre. That is the concept that our ministry supports.

MR. KEMPF: In finishing up, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly happy to hear that is the policy that the minister supports. I wish to tell this chamber that is not the policy being adhered to in this province at this time. I would also say that should the Vanderhoof Crown land plan or the Kispiox Crown land plan be put into effect, there would no longer be Crown land with timber on it available to our agriculturalists. There wouldn't be any Crown land at all available to our agriculturalists. It is a self-defeating situation, one that, with applications that are now before the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.... It is the policy of the government to prelog this agricultural land, and should the Crown land plans be put in place, no future Crown land would be available for agriculture. So I would suggest that the minister would have serious concern in both of those areas.

[4:30]

MRS. WALLACE: I have a specific item which I want to raise with the minister, but during the course of the debate today a couple of things have come up that I feel I would like to comment on. The first one is the issue of the minister's responsibility for food. It is a relatively new issue for this particular ministry — a relatively new responsibility — and I don't think it is one that has been discussed in any depth in this Legislature before, but it certainly raises some interesting thoughts and ideas.

As the minister responsible for food, certainly it puts a much broader concept on the duties of that minister. In a situation such as we are in today, as pointed out by my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford), it seems that the minister should be involving himself a bit more with that particular aspect of his administration. We have three food

[ Page 3913 ]

banks in my constituency: one at the south end, one at Lake Cowichan, and the major one — the first one — in the Duncan area. There are some 3,000 people enrolled as recipients in that particular unemployment centre. A lot of them are able to pay minimal prices; people who are on social assistance or UIC are able to pay at least the wholesale price of the food. But during the last month the requirement for free hampers has increased.

We have an added problem, of course, with the industrial dispute in the forest industry, which has put more people on limited or no income. We have 150 new persons registered just in one month at that food bank. That food bank has been in existence now for a couple of years. The community is responding, but it's just barely keeping that operation going. Old age pensioners are coming in with food and money; they can ill afford it. I wonder just what this minister has done with respect to contacting his counterpart in Ottawa. What do we have in surplus food in this country? We've always heard that more eggs are being made into powdered eggs than are required. We've heard about excesses in butter. We've heard about storage of powdered milk and processed milk. Do you know that those food hampers that go out to families in Duncan have no fresh milk, just powdered milk? If we in this country are making powdered milk and still have a stock of powdered milk, surely between this minister and other ministers across the face of the country, in conjunction with the federal ministry, there should be some way of redirecting that food. I submit to that minister that he has a responsibility in this new role to take some action in dealing with the federal ministry and other ministers across Canada to see if something can't be done to resolve this problem. I don't expect the miracle of the loaves and fishes, in spite of that minister's calling. But I do expect something from that minister in the way of providing food for the hungry in this province.

Another item that came up was on quite a different subject: the interest rebate program. It's interesting to note where we're at on that one. The history goes back a long way, as the minister will know. When that program was initiated, the purpose was to allow the farmers the opportunity to know what their interest costs would be. It was pegged at 8 percent. Now we have gone through quite a cycle, from 8 percent to 9 percent to 2 percent below prime to 1 percent below prime. Here we are this year, and this minister tells me we're at prime. I'm amazed that the Federation of Agriculture has said: "Well, okay. We'll leave it to your discretion next year." Next year we're apt to be 1 percent above prime. That's certainly the direction in which this ministry has been going. The extra money that you are able to recoup from that program, which you don't have to pay from out of that program.... The saving to the ministry by changing that rate.... A lot of loans have been prearranged at lower rates. I'm surprised that it's as low as the figure is by moving it to prime; I would have thought it would be more. I just feel it's undermining the whole purpose of that program to tie it to prime or move it up and down. The purpose of the program was to ensure that farmers had some advance knowledge of what their capital interest costs would be in order to plan ahead. It's a big investment, high capital, as the minister knows. It's something that goes on and on.

I want to talk to the minister about the bees — not the birds and the bees, just the bees. I have mentioned this before to the minister. I asked him what he knew about bees and honey. I'm sure he'll recall that correspondence. I won't repeat what he told me. However, I do have some concerns about what seems to be happening particularly here on Vancouver Island, where a lot of the bees are put out into the forest stands during the summer, where the fireweed grows up after the land is cleared. Of course, the legislation provides some quite firm regulations as to what shall happen: a person shall not possess bees that are not registered under the act; no person shall put bees onto property without the consent of the owner of that property.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do the bees know that?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I don't know if the bees know that — and probably they don't — but what I am concerned about is that apparently the bees' owners don't know that, because the bees' owners have been taking in hives and setting up a little colony on some of the forest land without the permission of the forest company which owns that land. Of course, there are concerns about disease, and also there are concerns about the amount of feed. There is an unwritten rule, as I understand it, that no two colonies will be closer than a mile and a half from each other, but that's not happening. I've had some considerable correspondence with the bee inspector on this, and I have, as I said, spoken to the minister about it. We're getting more and more bee-keepers now on the Island — more and more people involved — and they're forming themselves into little associations, and the association then sets up the little colony on the forest land. But then those people, who are pretty small-time operators really but have banded together to make a fairly equitable kind of an arrangement where they can go in and set up their colony, are in competition with some commercial firms that have been established for some time. The idea is that you go into a new growth area, you set up your colony and the fireweed comes on. As the trees grow up it becomes a poor area. So a lot of those early establishments for the commercial enterprises are now not adequately feeding those bees, and they seem to be moving them in close proximity to some of the newer establishments such as the associations.

Now there again seems to be an unwritten rule that the inspector, if he has to cause one colony to be removed because they're too close together, looks at the one which was first registered. He seems to have some reluctance to act and, as a matter of fact, has referred it to the Attorney-General, because what is considered the first registry date? Is it the registration for the original colony or is it the registration for the newer colony which is in closer proximity to the new establishment? I've had many bee-keepers in and out of my office expressing concerns over this, and one commercial enterprise just moved their bees in without the consent of B.C. Forest Products, who happen to own the land and were not familiar with the act. I sent them a copy of the act, and they promptly got the people out.

There is a lot of confrontation developing there, and it's something that is going to accelerate because of the accelerated honey production on the Island. I guess there actually is a need for greater areas. There seems to be some sort of playing-off one against the other — the small operator against the commercial — by saying: "Well, we'll set this area aside for clubs and we'll set this one aside for commercial." There are two areas that I have in mind: Shawnigan Lake and Meade Creek, where the private operators were in there and the commercial company brought theirs in; and apparently at Shawnigan Lake the commercial people had had their bees in there and were infringed upon by the bee

[ Page 3914 ]

keepers' association, I think from Victoria in that instance. I see a lot of conflict developing there, and I hope that the minister has had time since I spoke to him to review the matter and take some action — or at least be prepared to consider taking some action — to ensure that we do have a viable honey industry.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, let me address the member's first issue before I forget, and then I'll come back to the bees.

My ministry is called the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but the mandate of my ministry is not to be responsible for food wherever it happens to reach, or else I'd be responsible for all the kids' lunch baskets. The reason it was expanded from simply the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is that the canneries and other foodprocessing companies were involving themselves in food whose primary source was not only the land; it could also be water, like oysters. All of a sudden we had applications from oyster growers, who didn't really belong in Environment or in federal Fisheries or in any of these places and yet wished to be recognized for the contribution they were making to the food industry. When the ministry was expanded, it was expanded with that in mind. Since then we've had ongoing negotiations with exactly those people whom I used as an example. They would very dearly love to be a part of the Ministry of Agriculture. Yet in a technical sense they don't belong, do they?

[4:45]

I welcomed the idea of expansion, but certainly not with the idea of usurping responsibilities regarding food which belong to the Ministry of Health. For instance, licensing food-dispensing places doesn't belong to my ministry; it's not part of my mandate. Nor does the responsibility for providing the money to buy food belong to my ministry. Under my ministry we can discuss the production and processing of food, but when it comes to some of these other areas in the distribution of food — for instance, retail outlets, etc. — they do not come under my ministry, and for me to even make an observation in those areas would be out of order.

Coming to bees, I'm glad to hear what the member has to say about bees. I listened very closely, because in what she says may well be the answer to the bee problem. It's almost impossible to enforce any kind of isolation between bee colonies unless the distance between them is.... I don't know how far that distance must be; I'd have to check with the bees, and last time I checked, their communication system was broken down. The presence of disease in a colony, which of course could very easily be transmitted to another colony, is of major concern. Yet the only way my ministry could be certain or give any guarantees in this regard would be to have an association of beekeepers — not "many," but "an" — which could help us in the drafting of enforceable regulations. Right now we're certainly responsible for the regulations, but when you try to draft workable regulations you find out that they're nearly unenforceable.

An area in beekeeping in which our ministry is involved in a positive and progressive manner.... It used to be that if we wanted to buy our colonies, we had to buy our queen bees from some other place, usually south of the border. The assistance we have given there is in providing moneys for research to develop our own queens, so that we can develop our own local colonies and so that we don't have the introduction of mites and other problems from the far south, which could eventually bring us real problems in the beekeeping industry.

But as far as the complex problems of trying to keep the hives segregated is concerned, I know it's a difficult problem, and I do not have all the answers to it. I think that we need to work together to see whether we can't find answers to those problems.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister is answering questions that I didn't ask, but that's okay. I know about the queen plantation that you have going at Powell River, I believe. That's a good program. But I don't know what's happening.... That's at Powell River, I believe, that Queen plantation that you have going. I've heard some good things about it, and I've heard some bad things about it. Certainly it's a good idea to try to become self-sufficient in queen production. I have no quarrel with that.

But I don't think this is so complicated to enforce. The only question seemed to be whether it related to the first date that that particular person had applied for any or all of the sites, or whether it related to the site that moved in on somebody else's territory. I think that someone in the Attorney-General ministry could probably give you an interpretation of that pretty quickly. Otherwise, I don't know why you would hesitate to enforce the regulations.

Regarding your remarks about your responsibility for food, I turned around and picked up the act. It's interesting to note what it says: Section 4 is "Purposes and functions of the ministry." Subsection (a) mentions "the production, marketing, processing and merchandising of agricultural products and foods." Section 6 says: "The minister may empower a person or class of persons to collect information, subject to the conditions the minister may prescribe, respecting the production, marketing, processing and merchandising of agricultural products and food." It seems to me that you could make some inquiries under those sections, at the federal level, to see whether some food could not be freed up for the needy.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have an idea that I would like to bounce off the minister vis-à-vis the food problems in this province, which a number of our members have been talking about this afternoon. It may be an idea that the minister may wish to also discuss with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). Various municipal jurisdictions in the province of British Columbia — particularly cities and towns — often have pieces of land that are sitting waiting for developments or they are vacant and doing nothing. Sometimes they're in public ownership and sometimes they're in private ownership. Many times those pieces of land will sit for a number of years and nothing happens on them, except that they grow weeds and collect derelict automobiles, etc., An idea would be to work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on trying to develop a program with the various municipalities for the use of those pieces of land in these times of recession — to encourage the owners to use them for agricultural purposes.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Garden plots.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes. I know that in my riding there are a number of pieces of land sitting vacant. Very little happens

[ Page 3915 ]

on them. There are many others. It would just take a bit of organization, a few ideas to come — a spur, a catalyst, a suggestion from the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to perhaps put forward to the UBCM, for instance, and say: "Look, why don't you encourage agricultural use of that land during these difficult times." It might be an idea to use the food that's generated there for the various food banks that are in need. It's just an idea for the minister. Perhaps he would care to comment.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It doesn't need a lot of comment; it's a good idea.

MS. BROWN: I have a very short question to the minister: is it part of your role to take aggressive action to protect top-quality agricultural land from assault, even by a municipality? In Burnaby we have the richest agricultural land in North America right in the Big Bend area.

AN HON. MEMBER: In abundance.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We can feed the world because of the fact that you can get two and three harvests a year from that land. What happened is that because of the highway system, in collusion with the municipality, a part of that land was carved out. The new Marine Way went straight through the centre of it. On one side of Marine Way the land is still being used; on the other side there is some concern as to just what is going to happen to it. Does the minister see it as part of his role to intervene directly if there is even the slightest threat that the municipality of Burnaby or anyone else has any idea of using that very rich land for anything else?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I know that the member for Burnaby only said it in jest, but to feed the world from Burnaby is not that far-fetched an idea. In my last observations in Holland, for instance, under glass, the capacity for production is unbelievable. For instance, just for some comparisons: cucumber production is up a multiple eleven times per square foot under glass over what we would do in the open air here. To think that we couldn't do exactly the same thing in all the backyards of all of Vancouver is not that far-fetched at all. It's a good idea.

Now about the aggressive action. We allow the aggressive action of my ministry to take place through the Land Commission, and we support the Land Commission. I don't think that you could say they go out there and swing swords, but what happens is there is an aggressive protection that happens about that land. Unless someone can convince the commission or the Environment and Land Use Committee that some other use — a compelling use — is more important than the preservation for the production of food, it stays.

MS. BROWN: I'm really pleased to know that the minister feels as strongly about that. It's not a very large area, but it certainly is a very rich area.

One of the things I observed when I was in Italy was that when they were passing farmland — trains or highways, or whatever — they went over. They didn't do what we in North America do, which is just run straight across. Mind you, they're growing grapes, and maybe what you get from grapes is more important than what you get from cucumbers, I don't know. But it seemed to me that that's a better way of treating your very rich, arable land. I was very concerned when the municipality and the Ministry of Highways approved of sending a strip of highway right through the richest land that we have. I would really like the minister to give an assurance that in any future plans of that nature you would take into account the overpass concept. I know that all of your colleagues are travelling all over the world, and I would suggest that maybe you want to whip in to Rome, or somewhere like that, and see how they use the overpass method to protect the arable land, because they're busy farming underneath there all the time the trains, buses and cars are going by. It's a concept that I would like to see us use more of, when you take into account what a small percentage of the land that we have in this province is really arable.

[5:00]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, when I was over there, I was impressed with the land management concepts that they had. They preserve a little patch. Please remember that their ground is quite similar to ours, at least in southwestern Germany, where I was. They will preserve just a little patch. Even though the incline might be quite steep, they'll preserve it, because its number one use is for the growing of grapes.

I think that we have only just begun to do that kind of thing in the province of British Columbia. But to see it happening someplace else where people have lived for many more generations — many, many more hundreds of years than we have here — to see them handle the land as carefully as they do is a real encouragement. It was a real encouragement for me.

MS. SANFORD: The minister spoke a moment ago as though he was totally in support of the preservation of agricultural land in this province. If you look at the budget you can certainly see the antagonism that the government has towards the Agricultural Land Commission, because it has been left with a total of $80,000.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The commissioners have $80,000. It's right there on page 40 in your book.

What this means is that those commissioners are not going to be able to travel the province; they're not going to be able to take the same interest in the preservation of agricultural land as they have in the past. They have effectively been grounded, because with $80,000 you simply cannot travel with a minimum of five people in order to have hearings around the province to ensure that the agricultural land stays in the agricultural land reserve. I am very concerned about that. I feel that it demonstrates a definite antagonism, and I'm certainly not convinced by this minister that the government is keen to preserve agricultural land for agricultural production.

At the moment there are only four commissioners, unless there has been an appointment within the last few days. The act requires that there be five, so I assume that unless there has been an appointment within the last couple of days.... Has there been, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right, that takes care of that. I was concerned that they wouldn't be able to function at all. The

[ Page 3916 ]

act would prohibit them from doing so without five commissioners.

One of the newspapers from the Coquitlam area quotes Mayor Sekora about the future of Colony Farm. He expresses great concern that Colony Farm may not remain as agricultural land, and I have the same fears. I have expressed them many times in this Legislature. The mayor talks about the interest that Marathon Realty has displayed in that particular piece of property.

The minister will no doubt get up and say that the land is now under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, but I would like the assurance from this minister that the government will in no way entertain any application to have that land removed from the agricultural land reserve. I feel confident at this moment that if a request is made to the Land Commission, they will turn it down unanimously. But I'm not as confident about an appeal, which the act allows, directly to the cabinet. I would like the assurance from the minister today that there is no way his government will entertain any application to have that land removed from the agricultural land reserve through his cabinet committee.

Agricultural land is too valuable. The minister spoke a minute ago about the desirability of encouraging more gardening in back yards. The allotment gardens that were started in 1973 or 1974 were an excellent idea, but they have not been promoted since then. We've heard very little about allotment gardens. The program, which got off to such a flying start, has really fallen apart at the seams since then. In addition to saying it's a good idea, I would like to see the minister encourage this kind of thing through his ministry and through support for that concept and support for those people who were actually involved in allotment gardening. It was an excellent idea in 1974; the idea is probably more valuable right now because of the fact that so many people are going hungry. The program has been there for a long time. This renewed interest and sudden statement that it's a good idea is a little late, it seems to me. Why hasn't the minister been promoting this concept all along?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The district agriculturalist's office in Langley has been moved to Abbotsford, I believe, but the problem is that the office in which he was located has been leased for three years. Who is paying the bill for the rest of that lease? That office is now empty and the district agriculturalist is being moved to Abbotsford. There is a three-year lease on that property, and I would like to know who is paying it and how much money the government is going to have to pay out because of that move and the existing lease.

One other thing. The minister indicated to me earlier that the number of staff cuts — brand inspectors and some of the others he mentioned — totalled nine, but there are 82 staff cuts. Where are the rest of those staff cuts? Who is being chopped and why?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission is intact. The legislation requires that there be a minimum of five. Five are appointed; they are in existence. Normally they meet around the province, when they do meet, with a quorum. The quorum is three. The travelling expense and the commissioner's expense, because of the shrinking of the number of commissioners to the bare essential provided for in the legislation, allows for some of those savings that you see demonstrated in those columns. The fact that the commission travels with fewer members does not affect the number of places to which they must travel, nor does it affect the number of decisions they make. It just means that fewer people than before will be making decisions. I have to commend the commission for the speed and alacrity with which they handle their business. The backlog of work before the commission, or before ELUC, at the moment is very small. They are doing a good job.

The member expressed some concern about the land where Colony Farm used to be. You're absolutely right, the jurisdiction for that land is in the B.C. Buildings Corporation, but I don't think that's where the control is. I think the control is in the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, which, after all, has ultimate responsibility for the use of that property. The member suggested that she had confidence in the PALC but that she had no confidence in the appeals procedure. Perhaps the member should know that an appeal is not provided for in the first instance unless there is a subscription of two commissioners, which meant that there was some doubt in the commission's mind itself as to which way it should go. That's one route to go. The second round of appeal is if an appeal is requested of the minister himself. You need to know that the basis upon which an appeal is allowed at the minister's office is if there is support locally. I believe in local autonomy; it's an old hangover I've got. If there is support at the local level for the kind of project which is proposed for land use, then I allow an appeal, so that at least the proponent and the people who have objection can meet together in one room before ELUC and bring the concern to a head. If there is no support locally, an appeal is not provided for through this minister. It just dies right there: I send the letter back, saying "sorry." I uphold the commission, and I do not allow the appeal. I can give you every assurance that that same format will be followed....

MS. SANFORD: What assurance can you give us?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I imagine that the greatest assurance I can give you is the advice we receive from the Agricultural Land Commission. To give the member a commitment for a hundred years is not possible for me to do. I can only give you a commitment for as long as I have this office.

There was something else. She asked about market gardens. Yes, our Dr. Norma Senn is responsible for market gardens. She has found some difficulties when the market gardens are out in the open, because the security isn't there. There have been some abuses. Perhaps that's the contributing factor to the decline in their use. She is encouraging the use of market garden allotments. What do you call them? Allotment plots. It is being fostered and encouraged. There's good news for you.

MR. COCKE: The House Leader indicates that I grow zucchini in my back yard. My back yard faces the north and my front yard faces the south, therefore I've got a beautiful lawn and some nice flowers in the front yard; in the back yard I've got great moss. I tried growing tomatoes a couple of times, and they went black. I've had some trouble. In any event, that's the extent of my farming in New Westminster. Here I have a little more luck, but not all that much.

First let me suggest to the minister that there is a grave concern over Colony Farm. I've listened time after time to the minister indicate that it's up to the Land Commission; that

[ Page 3917 ]

they have the ultimate jurisdiction and will decide what will happen to the farm. If the government hadn't decided that they wanted to rid themselves of Colony Farm, why would they have sold off all the stock and machinery? Why is it now that the rumour about Marathon and their interest in this marvellous piece of land is so widely circulated? I want you to see in your mind's eye — your constituency isn't too far from Colony Farm — that no matter how rich that land is, and it is rich, close to it is a major industrial development. So naturally in the community there is grave concern over what the outcome of this particular government move is going to be.

The minister, believing in local autonomy, is very refreshing — particularly when he's part of a government that's so interested in centralization. In any event, even if the Land Commission unanimously says, "Don't let Marathon have it," ultimately the decision rests in the minister's office. And if the pressure is sufficiently great — the minister shakes his head, and I'll let that go into Hansard as well — and the minister decides that an appeal should be allowed to cabinet, which can override the decision of the Land Commission, then that will in fact occur. It may be that out of this will come some practical use of this land in its present form. Maybe they're going to break it up into small farms, but it strikes me that....

[5:15]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's already broken into 36 parcels.

MR. COCKE: Thirty-six parcels; what a shame.

Anyway, whatever the use, it comes to my attention that it rests in the minister's office. Now we can say that as long as we've got the present minister who's committed to "listening to the local folks...." If the minister is also committed to seeing that good rich land like that should be growing something, then maybe we've got some hope. But the thing that disturbs me, just this little niggling thing in the back of my mind, is what he said about "It depends on what the local people want" — as long as he's minister. What's he going to do, a survey? Is he going to go and knock on every door or is he going to listen to those people he wishes to listen to?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Elected people.

MR. COCKE: That's even more worrisome, from time to time. In any event, now that he's said that, I have to conclude that many times elected people at the local level are going to opt for the heavier tax base they get out of industrial or residential or commercial, vis-à-vis the tax they get from farming, which is the lightest of all taxation.

I've said my piece. I'm worried about that particular piece of land and I think we should be very concerned about what happens to it. It is rich. In the years that I've lived in the lower mainland I've watched the decimation of mile after mile of precious agricultural land. You see, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure you know this — one thing developers love is good flat land, easy to dig and easy to service. Don't go up on the hillsides where you can't grow anything anyway; go down there in the flat valley bottoms where it's easy to provide the services as cheaply as possible. When that is the motivation, it's a worry as far as I'm concerned.

On to one other aspect that I think I'd like to discuss for a moment. This was discussed previously by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Her concern was that at the moment we have the capacity, particularly in some areas of agriculture, for producing more than we require. In those instances we are producing to the extent where we sometimes have to get rid of what we produce, in the most unorthodox ways. I remember when I was a little kid and I heard about the dumping of the hogs in San Francisco Bay and couldn't believe it. There were people starving all over North America, but in order to keep the hog prices at the level that they were, they dumped them — thousands and thousands of them in San Francisco Bay.

We have a very serious situation in this province. Before taking the seasonal adjustment off the number of unemployed, we have an admitted 15.5 percent unemployed. It goes well beyond that, because there are many people who are apathetic and are no longer listed, because they're not on UIC or whatever. The member alludes to the food banks and other groups such as churches that are trying to assist the people who are in a deprived situation, in every way they possibly can. I think that our government should wake up to this need and see to it that some of these goods are picked up at our expense. Those of us who can afford it should be assisting those who can't at the moment. We're talking about eating. The Minister of Human Resources cut welfare payments to the "employable," who haven't a hope in Hades of getting a job in many instances. Oh, sure, there are some coming and going, and so on and so forth. But we know that we have 91,000 fewer jobs now than we had in July 1983. That being the case, we have a very serious situation in this province.

That serious situation indicates to me that some kind of deal should be made interdepartmentally, interministerially, or whatever — however you can do it — to see to it that some of the farmers' produce is picked up even at cost. They'd be delighted to do that as opposed to dumping it, and fit into this mechanism that has built almost spontaneously due to the needs of the people around. In New Westminster they started their food bank only serving a few people. Now they're lined up. It's very difficult for them to secure enough assistance. They do well at Christmas time, when everybody has that great feeling of generosity and love of their fellow person, but slowly after Christmas — sometimes it's not all that slow — that generosity and love of your fellow creatures sort of dies out a bit. I think that at this time the government could build a great reputation — Lord knows they need something going for them — and beyond that, they could satisfy the needs of some of the people here.

I've heard the Minister of Human Resources sort of indicate: "Well, don't make things too good here; otherwise they'll migrate from other provinces." I believe we have a net out-migration at the moment. And no wonder. Certainly if we don't, it is so close to zero.... But I believe it's a net out-migration. But having said that, the fact of the matter is that these are our brothers and sisters who are deprived. If we can't do something for people in less fortunate situations than our own, then do we deserve to be here in this hallowed place? I say that we should make way for those who are prepared to ask the public at large to make sufficient sacrifice so that we can be assured that there are no people starving. Not only that, but we say to the farmers: "Hey, we're going to make things just a wee bit easier for you too — not much, but just a wee bit." Waste is our greatest sin, in my view. And waste of food must have to be categorized as one of the seven

[ Page 3918 ]

deadlies. If it isn't, I'm sure the reverend minister over there will see to it that it's included in the next edition.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister takes seriously.... I listened to him in question period where he indicated quite clearly that he was going to be looking into this matter, and that it was one that tickled his fancy. I hope he's really serious about that, because there are those among us who surely need some heavy-duty decision-making — and they need it fast. The sooner the better.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the concerns expressed by the Member for New Westminster are universal concerns, and I think it is not the kind of a thing that anyone would wish to make political grounds on. I think the member is very, very serious, as I am. When I suggested to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) during question period the other day that it was an idea worthy of consideration, it's precisely what we did. The suggestion was to purchase surpluses; the foodstuffs that are in the normal flow would not be interrupted. So we went out to try to find out where the surpluses are. There are no surpluses in milk and eggs; there are surpluses in apples. There are no surpluses in the dairies, in pork, beef, potatoes, turkeys, chickens, vegetables or tomatoes. We went to see whether or not foodstuffs are actually being lost, and the fact is that the surpluses are not there. That's at this time. Please remember that in September or October stuff was being ploughed under, because it's perishable, naturally. And by the time you put the valueadded to it in processing it — putting it into cans so that it would be available by February — then all of a sudden it is no longer trying to put into the hands of the needy something that you could put there at no cost; you'd have to pay the wages of those individuals who are involved in the processing. So it is worthy of consideration — not just was — and I'm very, very concerned about it.

In discussing it with my colleagues, the best solution in March of a year is still to put into the hands of the needy as many dollars as you possibly can and allow them to select for themselves. I'd love to be able to accept more responsibility than that, but that would be the ultimate as far as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is concerned. When we discuss government matters — perhaps under a different vote — I might have completely other things to say.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we keep coming back to this issue of the minister's obligations and responsibilities as far as purchase of food is concerned. He doesn't really convince us about the surpluses either. I was reading an article the other day where the federal government has just purchased from B.C. farmers $8 million in canned peaches, pears and raspberries, because the B.C. farmers were financially troubled. If the federal government can make that kind of purchase to help troubled farmers, then surely this government can take at least that much interest, particularly since the lineups at the food banks and the soup kitchens here are particularly long. But I'm not going to dwell on that any more, Mr. Chairman.

The minister did not indicate to me where those staff cuts are, and I hope that he will do that shortly, if he can get that information. The interesting thing is, Mr. Chairman, that we've had these staff cuts in the ministry; we've had cuts in programs; we've had cuts to the Land Commission; we've had cuts to the interest reimbursement program; we've had cuts everywhere except in the deputy minister's staff. The deputy minister's office got an increase in staff. I just thought that worth noting at this time when we're taking about having no money to buy food and all that sort of thing.

[5:30]

Mr. Chairman, there is no new money for the ALDA program. This is a program that's already highly oversubscribed; it's a program that certainly needs funding. I don't know what the minister's intentions are there. I would like to have him spend a minute or two telling me about that. There is a large backlog of applications, and I'm wondering if that might be another one that might eventually get under that umbrella ERDA program that is now being discussed by the ministry.

The last time these estimates were up for debate, we very briefly discussed the red meat stabilization program which the four western provinces were debating and discussing. I appreciate that the minister and the people in British Columbia are not interested in joining that program because it is not going to be of any benefit to them. But since the whole program was devised on the assumption that B.C. would be a part of it, I would like to know whether or not the red meat stabilization program for the other provinces has also gone by the board as a result of that.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, it hasn't. All right. They are reworking the figures. Thank you, that's all I wanted to know there.

I cannot let these estimates go by without expressing my concerns about the sprays that are used in the agricultural community. I have always been concerned about the use of sprays, and I recognize that herbicides and pesticides are part and parcel of agricultural production in British Columbia as it now stands. For a period of four months this summer my daughter, who is a student in agriculture at UBC, decided to go to Britain on a work-exchange program and spend four months working on a farm in Britain near Canterbury in Kent. This was an organically oriented farm, and she was most impressed. I have been most impressed by the kinds of things that she has been telling me as a result of that four month work experience on that particular farm.

Mr. Chairman, it is possible to grow the most magnificent vegetables and to have a magnificent farm without the use of sprays. In this particular experimental farm in Kent, the farmer is at the stage where he is now proving to everyone who will listen that it is also economically viable. I think this is an area that this ministry should be looking at, although I know that there is virtually no money available for any kind of research. But this is an area that certainly needs to be explored so that we can cut down on the use of those herbicides and pesticides. The biggest safety factor among farmworkers is still the concern about the use of those sprays. Even when they've had some information about the application and the use of the sprays, there are still a number of problems that make the application of herbicides and pesticides in this province a very dangerous occupation.

I'm also concerned that the housing regulations for farmworkers are not going to be put into effect. The government announced that they would be insisting that proper housing standards would be met for migrant farmworkers, but that apparently is not the case. There is no time limit put on that, which means, of course, that you might as well not have

[ Page 3919 ]

announced the program. I must express my dismay about that particular aspect as well.

I hope that the minister will consider referring the issue of food, nutrition and the availability of funds to our lowincome citizens for the purchase of food to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I would hope that there would be other representatives on it so that we can begin to have an understanding of hunger and malnutrition in this province and perhaps encourage increased production here and there in order to ensure that the basic nutritional needs of our citizens are met. It is essential, and I think it's an obligation that falls on government. Never before has it been as urgent as it is now. You could purchase food right away. I'm sure you would find a way if you cast your mind to it, Mr. Minister, and that's all I will say on that issue.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, there are two things that I omitted from when the member previously stood: one has to do with the three-year lease on the district agriculturalist's office. My information is that our lease has been terminated.

Before I go to ALDA, the other area is staffing. This is not a complete digest but just a quick running total of the savings to date: the poultry test station, five; Tranquille, six to date, and more that we can save at Tranquille; Colony Farms, 28 positions; the sales yards inspection, three positions; the brands inspection, six positions; the vet lab, three positions; general office services, three positions; financial services, six positions; management positions, five to six — by the way, many of these are by attrition, so it depends on whether or not there is the choice or selection to retire; soils lab, three positions; excluded personnel, eight positions; the Land Commission — not on the commission itself, but commission staff — was up to 28 people and are reduced by five positions; and the milk board, three positions. Whatever that total is, that's a major chunk of the 88 positions that are saved. Okay?

Then to the ALDA program. The ALDA program is a revolving account. The payments come in monthly from the money that's out at low interest. That money, as it comes in, is available again for reloaning. It's a revolving account, and this year there was just a little over $3 million available. By February sufficient applications were in to take over the entire year. If there is an area where valuable money — if you know what I mean — could be injected.... As soon as some of those dollars are available again, I would like to recommend that some more dollars be put into that revolving account to make it available for land reclamation.

On herbicides, there's a conflict on which I do not have the handle. The farmers insist that in order to have a viable crop in some instances and a protected crop at all some herbicides are necessary. My concern then is to control it to tolerable levels of herbicide. I do think though that what the member suggests in having demonstration plots of strictly organic growing with no herbicides at all.... If it can be demonstrated to our own farmers that it's possible to do, then I'd love to see that happen.

On the question of housing, the housing models that I referred to last month are still available. Granted, it is only industrial quality; it's not the Holiday Inn on the comer. There are models of that kind of structure that are available, but as far as funding for them is concerned, the very best we can offer through our ministry would be to guarantee them the lowest possible interest rate on money they would borrow to build that kind of housing — through a guaranteed loan. That's the route we would have to take for now. I do not have any mortgage money, and I don't know that I can foresee there being any in the next couple of years.

MS. SANFORD: No money for food, no money for housing, no money for....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: That's the way it is, okay?

For those farmers who wish to provide that kind of thing at an industrial level, I think a guaranteed loan would be the ultimate.

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $73,117,362 — approved.

Vote 7: Milk Board, $246,719 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $824,463 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is with pleasure that I move second reading of Bill 5. I appreciate that there may be other members of the assembly who will wish to speak to this.

In November 1982 the Premier of the province announced that the provincial government would support a new engineering program at the University of Victoria. The university then prepared plans for such a program. Thirteen months ago, in February 1983, the Treasury Board approved planning funds for a new building which when constructed would accommodate an electrical engineering program. Detailed plans have now been prepared for the new building, which will be known, quite likely, as the science and engineering complex.

This bill provides an amount of up to $16 million to be held by the Ministry of Finance in trust for the purpose of financing the construction of the complex at a total cost not to exceed $15,283,000. It will also provide $717,000 for equipment for the electrical engineering program.

There is a unique aspect to this funding in terms of the method of payment, which may in fact be a forerunner- and I underline the word "may" — to assist in minimizing government costs by avoiding the burden of interest in future years. Through the holding of funds in trust until required, the government — and therefore the people of the province — will also be the beneficiaries of any interest earned by the grant. We will be assured that any underexpenditure would be returned to the consolidated revenue fund. This approval highlights the government's commitment to encourage the universities of our province to develop certain key identified specialties, and as a result to minimize the amount of program duplication in the total university. As a result of this

[ Page 3920 ]

action, the University of Victoria will be in a position to develop such a specialty in electrical engineering, a program that I earnestly believe promises to provide many benefits to the people of British Columbia. Approval of the science and engineering complex will help make the University of Victoria a national — indeed, in time, I would think, an international — leader in the field of very specialized electrical engineering. The development of this program will also provide an important stimulus to the economy of the capital region through the creation of both direct construction and then the related employment which will flow from the completion of the building.

[5:45]

Similarly, the bill reflects the government's commitment to help provide the appropriate environment to attract high technology industries to the province of British Columbia and, in this particular case — but not exclusively — to this region. Over time, increased employment opportunities in newly emerging sectors will inevitably help diversify the economy and bring greater stability to employment in this area.

Mr. Speaker, dare I hope that this bill will receive speedy passage in order that construction may proceed? I move second reading of the bill.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, until the minister said that construction is awaiting the speedy passage of this bill, I couldn't think of anything to say about it. I can't think of anything more ridiculous than that the minister would actually be waiting for the Legislature to approve this legislation before starting construction. I would ask whether the plans have all been drawn and tenders called; if so, has the successful tenderer been chosen?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, are you hearing the answers? I am getting some answers. I am not sure whether they're the right ones, but I would invite the minister....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsK2rPCsnaY&NR=1

Since we have gone to the point of saying that the moment this bill is passed construction will start, perhaps the minister could tell us a little more about just how much further along we are.

Certainly anything in favour of education is something that we will support. We have some concerns. The degree to which education as a service has, in the past year, been withdrawn from the people of British Columbia makes us wonder whether indeed the government really wants to extend educational service, or whether it's simply offering something to the University of Victoria that may be of use sometime in the future. I don't know. I would hope that it is going to be a new service offered at the University of Victoria. I would hope that there will be operating funds available so that there will be students ready when the new facility is ready. If construction of this facility depends upon support from the opposition, then construction will not be delayed, Mr. Speaker. We do support, as I say, any money being spent on education, in particular on university education.

MR. COCKE: I too say that we're not going to stand in the way of education programs regardless of where they're set up, but I still must suggest that it's a might ironic that while we are introducing a new engineering program to the University of Victoria, we are also cutting back in some areas of university training elsewhere. Is it consistent that we're providing here at UVic a relatively expensive campus for engineering training, when we have Douglas College — I realize this is an entirely different level of education, but it is post-secondary — with a good deal of empty space, which was set out to provide technical health and other training, and when we know that there is going to be a need for technicians very soon, if the government is serious about its suggestion that we will be out of the doldrums in the foreseeable future? I'm not for a minute going to suggest we back off. I have worries about trying to turn British Columbia into a Silicon Valley, which the Minister for Universities, Science and Communications talks about. I have concerns that we might try to turn this province into an area where we try to compete with some of the lowest-paid people in the word; that worries me. In any event, I hope the minister can indicate that coupled with this bill will be some suggestion that there be a good deal more time spent across the board — and I mean by Treasury Board — in this whole area of education. This is the area I think most people are gravely concerned about at the moment. Unless we are thinking about the entire education program of the province, I think we're being shortsighted.

So go get'em, tiger. We'll vote for it, but we'd sure like to see a little more response in other areas of education.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's nice, Mr. Speaker, to have this bipartisan enthusiasm for some brief remarks that I would like to make and particularly address to members opposite, who feel very keenly about the educational enterprise and, I'm pleased to say, will be supporting this bill.

The point, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make for the members opposite is that while many people are unhappy that there aren't more growth funds available for the educational enterprise, they forget that we have never had more people in universities and colleges in British Columbia than we have today. If it's merely quantity, this is the greatest year in our history, but there is more to it, of course, which is the whole point of the minister's bill. If we can begin to use our educational dollars to provide the cutting edge of new industry in British Columbia, then we're going to have the opportunities that the members opposite keep calling upon the government to provide. There are no easy solutions, there are no quick fixes, but by seeding into British Columbia — and particularly Vancouver Island, a high unemployment area — the new skills which will count in the future, this should achieve the very objectives that the members opposite have requested.

I must, Mr. Speaker, take issue with a point made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and remind him that the state of California, which is the size in population of the nation of Canada, is carried economically by 400,000 high-technology workers; a tiny, tiny segment makes up the wealth of that state. Any number of studies, Mr. Speaker, have demonstrated this remarkable fact. There are no forests, no huge hydroelectric plants, no enormous deposits of gas — none of the things that Canada takes such pride in; there is only a small cadre of high-technology workers who carry the economy of the state. The member for New Westminster is worried that something like that might develop in Canada. I think his worries should be dispelled. I can only recommend — perhaps with the many vacancies that we notice in the House here — that some of the members might slip down to California and see for themselves. They would have an eye-opener.

[ Page 3921 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments and questions to the minister in charge of the bill here. I note that female enrolment at engineering school is just about 6 percent now at UBC. I would hope that the Minister of Finance and the other members of cabinet, in approving this, will also accept the responsibility to see that the doors are opened wider at the secondary level in our public school system not only to make a better opportunity for women to get into pre-engineering but also for the person who perhaps doesn't have the income but does have the ability to go on. It's great to build this engineering school. I think the opposition has said they are in favour of it. Being somewhat parochial, may I say that Simon Fraser wanted it. But the decision had to be made, and it's there now. The point that I want to make, though, is that there has to be a lot of groundwork done to bring in equality for the people who have the ability to go on to this school of engineering. I hope that that responsibility will be met by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is in charge of the public school education at secondary levels.

I have one question for the Minister of Finance. When the decision was made in cabinet to move on an engineering school — putting aside where it was to be placed what kind of preparation were you given to accept the need for this school? Are you satisfied that you had all the proper research given to you, and charged with finance for this province, that you are able to move on this school financially at this time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments which have been made in this brief debate. I think I will start with the last questions posed by the member for Burnaby North, who has just taken her seat.

As I indicated at the outset, Mr. Speaker, the decision was taken quite some time ago with respect to the engineering school at the University of Victoria. It was in November of 1982, but it was then referred to the treasury board committee of cabinet. The process proceeded from there. To the member, yes, I am satisfied indeed that the designation of the University of Victoria for this particular activity is not only appropriate but completely correct at this time. In a period when we have limited capital funds, this project was recognized by the Premier and by my colleagues as one which should proceed at the earliest moment. There is no doubt also that the capital region has been persistent — and I use the word in the correct and kind term — in seeking this authorization, and has been discouraged from time to time because some projects take longer than one would like. Nonetheless, the community support has certainly stayed firmly in place, and indeed has accelerated.

On the question of the enrolments — women versus men — I endorse what the member has said, but this is the financing bill. I think members on both sides of this House have contact with and relate well to the University of Victoria president, Dr. Howard Petch, and I think that he will read with care the remarks which have been made. My members may then individually proceed as the school is constructed and eventually opened.

Finally, to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) on the question of tendering, the University of Victoria — quite wisely, in my view — although the tendering process is underway, will not award this tender until royal assent has been given to this bill. I shall turn later, but not much later, to the government House Leader, hoping that we may have a visit by His Honour at some point, and then the University of Victoria is in place to proceed.

I think this is an important bill, not just for this southwestern corner of B.C., but indeed for all parts of the province. May students succeed in this program no matter where they come from, and may it be the start of something very important for the province. I again move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, University of Victoria Special Appropriation Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 3922 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

32  Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. How many contracts for consultants have been approved by Treasury Board for fiscal 1979/80, 1980/81, 1981/82 and 1983/84?

2. Which ministries made use of these consultants?

3. For each ministry, what were the fees paid to each consultant and how many hours were contracted for by each consultant?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"Names of all individuals and companies receiving payment for supplies or services rendered to the Provincial Government are listed in the Schedule of Payments of Public Accounts for each fiscal year. No separate record of payment for 'consultants' is kept. Public Accounts for the fiscal years 1979/80, 1980/81 and 1981/82 have been presented to the Legislature and are therefore public documents. Public Accounts for the fiscal year 1983/84 are only now being compiled and their completion is some months away.

"Since no separate record of consultants' payments is maintained, it would not be possible to provide a breakdown of consultant services used by individual ministries nor to provide the fees paid and hours contracted for by individual consultants."