[ Page 11265 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

An Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone

(Bill M232). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

An Act to Ensure Sound Forest Practices on Private Land (Bill M233).

Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Forest Resource Inventory Act (Bill M234). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Forest Waste Reduction Act (Bill M235). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11267

Oral Questions

Ethics advisory committee report. Mr. Harcourt –– 11267

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Mr. Miller 11268

Statement by general manager of Pacific National Exhibition.

Mrs. McCarthy –– 11268

Building of super-ferries. Mr. Sihota –– 11268

Point of Privilege

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Mr. Miller –– 11269

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 11270

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Jones

Mr. DeJong

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill 70).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 11299

Mr. Clark –– 11299

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 11300

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990 (Bill 34).

Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Mr. Blencoe –– 11300

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

(Bill 71). Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Mr. Blencoe –– 11300

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11301

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 78).

Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11301

Mr. Clark –– 11301

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11302

Range Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 74). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11302

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11302

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11303

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 41). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet)

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 11303

Mr. Blencoe –– 11303

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 11303

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 11303

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Clark

Point of Privilege

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 11323

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 11323

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ms. Pullinger

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, today our Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) is 59 years young. Will the House please join me in congratulating a very good friend and colleague on his birthday.

MR. HARCOURT: In the House today is Ken Abramson, his wife Jana and their daughters Claire and Leah. Ken is on the executive of the New Democrat constituency association for the new riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. Would you give them a warm welcome. They'll be here for question period.

MR. MOWAT: I draw attention to the House that the former mayor of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Tom Alsbury, passed away last weekend. Mr. Alsbury was the mayor of Vancouver from 1958 to 1962. I'd ask the House to remember the great work he did for the city of Vancouver and our province. I would ask, if the House is in agreement, that the Speaker send condolences to his family.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that the Speaker send a message on behalf of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: So it will be done.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, several years ago the unfortunate death of a member who sat on both sides of this House, Mr. Passarell, and of his wife resulted in a very complicated court case. Recently, Mr. Gary Lauk, a former member of the opposition, successfully negotiated in court a satisfactory settlement on behalf of the children of Mr. and Mrs. Passarell. I would ask this House if it would take the time to express, on behalf of this House, its congratulations to Mr. Lauk for a job extremely well done.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) I'd like to welcome three constituents whom I met on the ferry on the way over this morning: Dave and Gerry Imrie and their daughter Collette. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I notice Richard Thomas from the B.C. Central Credit Union. I'd ask all members of the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the galleries today are three members of the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group: Al Rycroft, Andrew Gage and Suzanne Rose. Would the House please make these people welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Bill Smith of Victoria, who has brought two visitors from California: Phil and Andrea Spira.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair presently has under advisement two allegations of breach of privilege or contempt raised in this House on July 11, 12 and 16 last. It is most unusual and unique that, while such matters are under consideration by the Chair, so many subsequent events occur which may directly or indirectly bear on the issues. I, of course, refer to the announcement of the police investigation, the engagement of the Deputy Attorney-General of Alberta, consideration by the ombudsman and possible involvement of the Law Society of British Columbia at some stage.

In addition to the alleged matters of contempt placed before the Chair, there have been allegations of breaches of the Criminal Code and the radio communications act and contraventions of the Privacy Act. As a consequence, the Chair is very concerned that any ruling by the Chair at this time might have the effect of breaching the spirit and intent of the sub judice rule, although perhaps not offending that rule as it is usually applied.

There exists another unusual circumstance, in that the conduct of persons outside this House, as well as members of the House, is interwoven in the issues and is the subject of an inquiry and examination. Under the circumstances, the question arises whether the House itself should decide — or the Chair — if the spirit and intent of the sub judice rule should persuade the House to temporarily withhold its own inquiries while other inquiries into the same circumstances are being conducted.

The Chair has been greatly assisted in resolving this question by a precedent to be found in the journals of the Quebec National Assembly of March 26, 1974. In that ruling, Monsieur le président — the Speaker — held that while he had allowed a matter of privilege to be raised and a motion to be announced, he would not allow the matter to proceed further at that time, as it would involve a breach of the sub judice rule. It is my decision to adopt the reasoning of le président of the Quebec National Assembly under similar circumstances. Therefore, in order to safeguard the rights of those who might be prejudiced by this House pursuing its own remedies, and while at the same time other processes are underway, I propose to withhold any further consideration of the issues for the time being.

This temporary disposition of the matter should not lead to the belief that the Chair has any doubt as to the status of electronic surveillance per se. It is imperative that it be universally recognized and remembered that electronic surveillance, even though it may not be a breach of other laws, is a grave contempt of this House. The statement has already been made in this House: "Parliamentary democracies flourish only when member and constituent can communicate freely, openly and candidly without having the spectre of interception...interfering with

[ Page 11266 ]

such communications" — Special Committee of Privileges, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, June 6, 1980. The activity of electronic surveillance of a member subjects anyone so involved to sanctions of this House.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains amendments to 13 statutes, covering a number of different programs. The statutes covered by the bill are: Accountants (Chartered) Act, British Columbia Transit Act, College and Institute Act, Dyke Maintenance Act, Employee Investment Act, Fire Services Act, Institute of Technology Act, International Financial Business Act, International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act, Municipal Finance Authority Act, Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act, Small Business Venture Capital Act and Utilities Commission Act.

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes administered by the Ministry of Attorney-General. These statutes are: Commercial Arbitration Act, Court of Appeal Act, Family Relations Act, Interpretation Act, Jury Act, Limitation Act, Offence Act, Regulations Act and Supreme Court Act.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

AN ACT TO DECLARE BRITISH COLUMBIA
A NUCLEAR WEAPONS–FREE ZONE

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled an Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons–Free Zone.

MR. PERRY: Forty-five years ago, Albert Einstein stated that the splitting of the atom had changed everything except our manner of thinking. He went on to say that if we are to survive, we shall require a substantially new manner of thinking. The majority of British Columbians agree with that idea. In a recent poll commissioned by Greenpeace, 69 percent indicated that they favour British Columbia becoming a nuclear weapons–free zone. Some 66 municipalities representing two-thirds of the population of the province have made such a declaration.

The intention of this bill is to make the process complete for the entire province — to recognize that nuclear weapons do not in fact protect life on earth but hold over our heads a sword of Damocles that threatens our extinction as a society and perhaps the extinction of most life on earth. The opposition would welcome government support for this bill, which would be consistent with the wishes of the majority of the population of B.C.

Bill M232 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ENSURE SOUND FOREST
PRACTICES ON PRIVATE LAND

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled An Act to Ensure Sound Forest Practices on Private Land.

MR. MILLER: This bill establishes a mechanism through which timber-harvesting operations on private lands may be reviewed to ensure that good forestry practices are followed and that no degradation of the timber resource or general environment occurs as a result of the harvesting activity. Under this act, the manager of every forest region in the province will form a forest practices committee with members from various levels of government and non-governmental groups. Every person who plans to harvest timber from private land which is zoned for non-residential use, or which is larger than five hectares and is not classified as farmland, will submit a harvesting plan to the district forest manager. The district manager will submit the plan to the committee, which will approve or reject the application.

In addition, the bill gives the forest practices committee the authority to establish, with community participation, forest practice guidelines for specific areas within the region where specific resource management guidelines are needed. Appeal processes are established for decisions of the committee on the approval of harvesting plans and on any forest practice guidelines produced by the committee.

Bill M233 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST RESOURCE INVENTORY ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Resource Inventory Act.

[ Page 11267 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that the inventory work required under the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act is undertaken thoroughly, with a comprehensive inventory completed every ten years. Although inventories are presently required under these acts, complete inventories have not been carried out in some areas of the province for up to 20 years, due to budget and staff cutbacks.

This bill also ensures that inventories of rangeland, ecological classifications and water resources within Crown land will be updated on the same schedule as the timber inventories. The results of the inventories are required to be published and made available to the public at ministry offices in each forest district.

In between complete inventories, the chief forester will be responsible for noting logging activities and other forest depletion for the purposes of keeping a current inventory.

Bill M234 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST WASTE REDUCTION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Waste Reduction Act.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces changes to provincial scaling procedures which will lower the amount of harvested wood that is wasted in the forests of the province.

Starting on April 1, 1991, the district managers in each forest district will be required to calculate a portion of stumpage based on volume figures obtained through a cruise of standing timber rather than on the amount of timber a company presents at a scale location. Under the system of scaling standing timber, there will be a strong incentive to bring out as much wood as possible so as to lower cost per metre of harvested wood and hopefully result in better forest practices.

Bill M235 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about the public's right to information, which is fundamental to our democratic system. This government is frustrating that right by suppressing important information that the public needs and deserves. Will the Premier today direct his Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) to release the ethics advisory committee report on abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's nice to see it's Monday; the Leader of the Opposition is in the House. You can always tell the day of the week.

In response to the question, we can very easily demonstrate that we have had the most open government in the history of the province and perhaps the country. There is, however — and I see the Minister of Health hasn't quite arrived yet — a need for ministry people, particularly in Health, Social Services and the like, to obtain from time to time reports on various issues which require expertise such as the ethics committee is able to provide. That's not to say that such information necessarily always need be or should be used, but certainly it's a very necessary tool, I believe, for government to have groups such as this that ministries can call upon.

I expect that it will be a decision for the ministers and the ministries, and perhaps one of government, that if all such reports are made public, then perhaps from time to time, possibly given the way they're presented, there may be a reluctance by ministries to call for such reports. I'm not sure just what. But I would ask that you pose the question to the Minister of Health with respect to this specific report when he returns to the House, which may be momentarily, and he would then, I'm sure, be able to answer the question more fully.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. The minister has had the report for two years, so obviously he's not going to release it unless the Premier puts that request forward. I hope the Premier isn't simply going to ignore the public's right to information on this matter. If he does, he must have some very strong reasons. I'd like to know what it is about the information in this report that prevents the Premier from releasing it to the public.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am sure that one day when we both have the time, I'd be pleased to sit down with the Leader of the Opposition and explain how, perhaps administratively in various ministries, they require certain information from time to time. I think they ought to be able to do this without fear of it becoming a political issue each and every time such requests are put forth by them — to whatever body of expertise. For this reason, I think ministries ought to have some flexibility in that regard. However, that's a ministry decision. I would suggest once more to the Leader of the Opposition that when the minister returns to the House, he may want to pose the question to him as to the specifics — or this specific report and it’s release.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary question. Isn't it the case, Mr. Premier, that this report was never released because the ethics committee report recommendations were contrary to the Premier's own personal views?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Those who serve on the ethics committee are certainly entitled to their views. I don't know specifically what the Leader of

[ Page 11268 ]

the Opposition is referring to, but I gather from what he said that he has some knowledge of the report. Obviously the report has some information that may agree with his viewpoint but not necessarily mine, and therefore he has requested three times already that the report be released. I thought he wanted the report released for public consumption and information and not for some personal reason. I gather from the question, or the way it was posed just now, that he's really.... That sort of re-emphasizes the point I made earlier about these reports being used for strictly political purposes. I would say shame to the Leader of the Opposition, if that's your intent. My view is that all people are entitled to their views.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. What we are talking about is the public's right to know. This government's secrecy could be avoided if British Columbians had a legislative act protecting their right to have this information.

Will the Premier agree today to adopt, in the public interest, the New Democrat bill, Bill M219, the Freedom of Information Act, as a government bill? I can assure the Premier that he will get our caucus's full support for speedy passage of the bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take all of question period repeating what I've already said, but the questions appear to be repetitive, so I'll do my best. Obviously, there's nothing urgent or pressing in this province today, so we'll just keep repeating....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's good government. You're right.

I can't speak about legislation that may be before the House, but I can repeat that we have certainly seen in the last number of years openness such as we've never seen in the province or country before, and I would hope that we continue to have it this way.

I do realize that from time to time ministries require certain information provided them that may be for administrative purposes. They ought to be free to ask for it, it should be available to them, and they should not be discouraged from seeking such information.

I also realize that oftentimes.... For example, the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that all things ought to be made public somehow. When you are dealing with personnel matters, then we need to consider that as well. Perhaps one day we'll get to debate this in more detail. I don't think we should take up the time in question period today, except to repeat that we want to see openness continue such as we've seen in the last number of years.

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. With respect to the awarding of the Takla-Sustut licence and the subsequent report by the ombudsman, would the minister characterize the ombudsman's report as accurate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Going from memory, I think those were my exact words in the press release I put out on Friday.

MR. MILLER: Supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Given the accuracy of the report, does the minister then concur with the finding in the report that the decision on the awarding of the licence was made by cabinet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, Mr. Speaker, if the member would take a look at the press reports that I put out, I'm sure he would find that that is exactly what I said in my press report: the decision was made by cabinet.

[2:30]

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister. Given that the purpose of the legislation was to forbid political interference in licence decisions, and given that the ombudsman has concluded that political interference did occur, does the minister not agree that the government broke the law by politically interfering in the awarding of this licence?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would pose a question back to the member. Is it "political interference" when a government makes a decision on behalf of the most good for the most people in this province?

STATEMENT BY GENERAL MANAGER
OF PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MRS. McCARTHY: This question is for the Minister of Tourism, who is responsible for the Pacific National Exhibition. In a weekend report it was noted that the general manager of the PNE expounded on day care centres as "places where kids go to get brainwashed." As Mr. Thomas is an appointee of the government to the Pacific National Exhibition board, his comments could be misconstrued and could even be taken as a reflection of this government's policy, which I know they are not. I want the assurance of the minister and the government that they in no way agree with the neanderthal statements that have been made. I would like to ask the minister if he intends to censure Mr. Thomas on this topic.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I want to say for the record that I personally and categorically disagree with the statement that was made. It in no way represents the policy or position of this government.

BUILDING OF SUPER-FERRIES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. With respect to B.C. Ferries and the super-ferries, tenders have now been issued worldwide, including Europe.

[ Page 11269 ]

On Friday last, workers at Versatile were told that management could no longer assure them the work would be done in B.C. As a consequence, rumours are rampant through the shipyards in Esquimalt that work with respect to the super-ferry is going to be tendered and done in Europe. Given the fact that this has generated a significant amount of uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry, both on the management side and from the workers, is the Premier today prepared to give this House and the workers in the shipyards an assurance that the next ferry — the super-ferry — will be built here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously the industry is concerned, and I can appreciate that. They wish to see as much of the work in the province as possible, and I agree with that too. As well, I know that the minister has had a number of meetings with people from or in the industry. We had one meeting involving all of the industry and the unions right here in the buildings, and I know that was very helpful. I don't know exactly how they intend to tender these, what our own industry might best be capable of or how competitive we can be. All that detail I don't have available. All I do know is that when I was the mayor in Surrey, it was the only time that a major contract for ferries went out of the country — and that was in 1973.

MR. SIHOTA: Although I was only 19 at that time, I can tell the minister that the economy was booming under that administration, and the shipyards were full of work. That's what was happening in 1974. But today under this administration there's an absence of work in our shipyards.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the Premier is this. The Premier talks about concern for the industry. That concern can evaporate if the Premier gave an assurance today that the work would be done in British Columbia.

Could the Premier offer this House an explanation as to why he is not prepared to give the assurance that the work will be done here in British Columbia? What, Mr. Premier, have you got against the shipyard workers in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can appreciate how, as a 19-year-old, the member for Esquimalt thought all things were fabulous. We can all recall Norman Levi shovelling the money off the back of a truck, so I can appreciate how you viewed it then. Again, I believe I have answered the question.

I should also mention to the member for Esquimalt that until we get all of the information on the tendering — such as, perhaps, with respect to individuals — we should give it some thought before responding immediately.

Point of Privilege

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER: I rise on a matter of privilege, namely that the former Minister of Forests deliberately misled the House regarding the awarding of a forest licence in the Takla-Sustut area of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Members should be aware of the procedure involved in this process. Could the member briefly make his statement, table any information that he wishes to table for consideration by the Chair, and advise the Chair that he would be prepared to move the appropriate motion if in fact the Chair finds a prima facie case.

Has the member a motion that he would be prepared to move?

MR. MILLER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to move a motion should the Speaker find a prima facie case.

MR. SPEAKER: It would assist the Chair if you would table that with the Clerk and state your matter briefly.

MR. MILLER: I also will table the documents that I'll refer to, which are the ombudsman's report of June 22, 1990, on this matter; a press release issued on Friday, July 20, 1990, by the current Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) on this matter; and the Hansard debate for June 20, 1988, wherein this matter was discussed.

The ombudsman's report states that there was an internal evaluation of applications for a forest licence following the advertisement of such by the ministry. The report states, on pages 2, 3, 4 and 5, that extensive reviews were conducted by four branches within the ministry and two regional offices of the ministry, and the report states that the four branches and the one regional office recommended that the licence be awarded to applicants from the western area, the Smithers-Hazelton area. The report goes on to state on page 7 that the deputy chief forester, the person duly constituted under the Forest Act in force at that time, recommended that the licence be awarded to western applicants.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the press release that I referred to issued by the minister on Friday which states that: "Under the legislation then in effect, elected members were not able to exercise the decision-making function." I would draw your attention to the words of the minister today in response to my question: "That is exactly what happened." In other words, cabinet made the decision. I now refer to pages 7 and 8 of the ombudsman's report, which states that the cabinet made the decision to award the licences.

Finally, I refer to Hansard for June 20, 1988, pages 5225 and 5226, wherein an exchange took place between the former Minister of Forests and the first

[ Page 11270 ]

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). There are two points. In the one exchange, the member for Vancouver East said: "In the case of the Takla and Sustut, was there unanimous recommendation, for example?" The response from the former minister: "Recommendation basically by consensus." The ombudsman's report deals extensively with that matter and appears to suggest otherwise.

Finally, the former Minister of Forests said: "Under the existing act, the chief forester makes the decision, and under the amended act the minister would make the decision." The first member for Vancouver East then said: "With respect to the Takla matter, the chief forester did make the decision. Is that the case?" The response from the former minister was: "The deputy chief forester made that decision." That is quite contrary to the facts established by the ombudsman's report and by the Minister of Forests in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts I have provided clearly establish that the former Minister of Forests, although aware that the internal Ministry of Forests' reviews recommended that the western applicants get the licence and aware that cabinet — not the deputy chief forester — made the decision to award the licences to Prince George firms, nonetheless misled the House to the contrary.

I have an appropriate motion, as I indicated at the outset, if you find a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been made. I believe that has been tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have just one matter of clarification. Is the former minister you refer to the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) or the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ?

MR. MILLER: The former minister is the current member for Skeena and the current Minister of Crown Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. It assists the Chair in determining matters.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $279,190.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Hon. members, it is indeed a pleasure for me to present the 1990-91 estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am very proud to be part of a government that has proven its responsibility year after year in presenting not only another balanced budget, but a budget that offers vision and leadership built on a stable foundation for the 1990s.

Mr. Chairman, the agriculture and food sector in British Columbia is a $10 billion a year industry and is the third-largest contributor to a healthy British Columbia economy. This is comprised of $8.8 billion on the retail side and $1.3 billion in exports.

Overall, the food industry is growing at 3 percent to 5 percent a year in British Columbia. The environment is right in British Columbia for future growth. This environment is a partnership of the individuals, families and firms involved in our food sector and a free enterprise government that, through its leadership, has instilled the will to win in British Columbia's agriculture and fisheries sector.

Agriculture Canada's latest forecast of realized farm net income reflects a period of adjustment facing most provinces in Canada. They predict that for Canada overall, the realized net farm income is going to be down by some 22.5 percent. This is very severe news to most in the agriculture sector. Certainly our neighbours in the Prairies are facing a reduction that is really staggering. It is down 18 percent in Manitoba, down 30 percent in Alberta and down 67 percent in Saskatchewan.

The global economic struggle between the United States and the European Economic Community is the main cause of the situation, but even the traditionally strong provinces of Quebec and Ontario will also be down — Quebec by 3 percent, Ontario by 14. In some provinces it will mean a progression of farm bankruptcies, high debt levels and a great apprehension about what the summer will really bring.

British Columbia farmers can expect to realize — believe it or not — approximately a 23.3 percent increase in net income in 1990 over 1989, according to recent Agriculture Canada forecasts. This is not an accident, nor due to special programs, nor the result of artificial conditions set by government. This is real wealth. Our industry — on its own — has continued to diversify to satisfy new-niche markets around the world.

[2:45]

B.C.'s livestock sectors are forecast to show the healthiest projected gains this year. Significant increases in receipts are anticipated for cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, lamb and poultry. Low prices for feed grain, such as wheat, barley, corn and soy beans, will likely decrease expenses for livestock producers. Receipts for forages should increase, and smaller gains are predicted for fruit, floriculture and nursery products. Some losses are expected in the grains and oil-seeds sector, and heavy rains have had an adverse affect on vegetable production this spring.

British Columbia's tremendous diversity of agricultural production has protected our provincial economy from the devastating effects which low grain prices have had on the Prairies. Despite financial pressures in a few specific sectors, the buoyancy displayed in most areas of our food production should make British Columbia farmers Canada's most favoured agriculturists in 1990. Hard work, heads-up planning and innovation have placed us as Canada's leaders in efficient agriculture.

[ Page 11271 ]

As leader in balancing the budget, in education for the future and in economic development, British Columbia has led the country in economic performances in employment, capital investment and consumer spending — at double the national rate. The agriculture and fisheries sector is a strong and contributing part of that particular success.

Our prosperity comes from the dedication of the men and women in this sector. I am honoured as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to be able to stand in this House and point to the history of the farmers and fishermen who have built this sector over the past hundred years or more. It has endured and grown and contributed for over a century, led by the values that come from the pride of being independent, from the love of the land and the sea and from the equality and respect between men and women that you find nowhere else.

This year my ministry has put forward a budget that will continue to ensure adequate food supply for British Columbia. It will allow for increases in domestic and export marketing. It will reflect our commitment to realize opportunities presented by an emerging global marketplace. It demonstrates our commitment to provide those in our agriculture and fisheries sectors with the tools to implement their own business plan. It demonstrates our commitment to the consumers of British Columbia to provide clean, safe and healthy food that will be competitively priced. It demonstrates our commitment to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We are not breeding an atmosphere of tax dependency that is always taking and never giving back.

The world of tomorrow does not reward failure and punish success. In last year's budget I announced a $28 million Canada–British Columbia grape and wine agreement which assisted our growers to adjust to the newly competitive market of the nineties. This was a proactive, forward-looking plan extended to the industry and supported by both provincial and federal dollars. Over 200 growers participated in the program. They reviewed their resources and replanted for the future. Those who didn't participate were compensated under the 1989-90 program.

What we have witnessed is a $28 million success in just one year, as this industry — mainly through its own foresight and planning — has positioned itself to compete successfully in the world. We will see this industry grow back from the new varieties that will be planted. This action reinforces the new agricultural industry and those with the will to win and succeed. The majority of growers put their feet down and recommitted themselves to the future of British Columbia. The ministry has allocated over $1.7 million to complete the grape vine pull-out and to assist in the promotion and marketing of British Columbia premium wines. This is our model for the nineties — our model for the agriculture sector in British Columbia.

However, we also recognize that as well as world market pressures, crops are at the mercy of Mother Nature. Drought, rainfall and pests are still a reality. We must respect nature's power and forget neither its blessings nor its potential for unpredictable disaster. My ministry has reviewed both our crop insurance stabilization and national tripartite agreements to assure our food producers that these safety-net programs will continue regardless of the negative impact. This year we are negotiating more national tripartite stabilization agreements on behalf of and in full partnership with our food producers.

This year the gross benefit to the producer will be greater, as the cost of the program decreases the pressure on farm income insurance. Everyone wins with this program. The producers are moving toward a level playing-field, consumers are assured of a food supply, and taxpayers are reassured that farmers do not have their hands in government pockets but are squared in a handshake of true, fair and equitable economic partnership.

Our budget themes. The 1990-91 budget reflects major themes that address trends in agriculture and fisheries businesses as well as our responsibilities to the consumers and taxpayers of British Columbia: that we have a safe and secure food supply; that we have competitiveness in the marketplace; that we provide service to our client groups; and financial stability.

I'd like to just touch for a couple of minutes on safe and secure food supply. Although faced with a more competitive world, we continue to enjoy a reputation for excellence worldwide. Our record stands alone, whether it is for our seafood, our meats or our fruits and vegetables.

British Columbia produces a greater variety of quality food products than any other area in Canada. We're not just providing nourishing food; we're producing it in innovative ways with a greater-than-ever degree of environmental sensitivity. Our food is clean, and with the programs we are introducing this year, our standards will be higher than anywhere in the world.

For years our consumers have been demanding safe, clean food. Our agriculture and fisheries sectors have heard this call. Many areas of the agrifood industry have been proactive in responding to these trends in the marketplace by finding ways to reduce the chemicals that are added to food. The greenhouse industry is a good example. These growers have almost completely eliminated pesticide use in some crops by using biological controls such as predator insects. Integrated pest management, the agricultural strategy which concentrates on biological pest control and genetic engineering to reduce chemical requirements, is in fact the wave of the future. B.C.'s apple growers stopped using Alar on their apples fully two years before it was identified as a problem by either the Canadian or American governments.

British Columbians want a safe and secure food supply, and the agriculture and fisheries sectors are leading the way in assuring a high-quality food product — food that is produced using sound farming practices. The province is committing $2.5 million over three years for a soil and water conservation program. These funds will be matched by the federal government. British Columbia's contribution during

[ Page 11272 ]

the first year of this program will be $0.5 million from the sustainable environmental fund.

In addition, the Food Choice and Disclosure Act enables agribusiness to work with government to develop standardized, credible labelling systems and techniques. This act will give food producers the regulatory means to communicate the superiority of their products and processes to B.C. consumers. These initiatives by government and industry will help to ensure that British Columbia retains and expands its position in world food markets.

My ministry will undertake to ensure that our supply and management system provides a fair deal for both the consumer and the producer. It is my commitment to British Columbia to provide a regulated marketing system which is equitable and open and committed to fair prices. It means an assured supply of food for local consumers first, and exports of any surplus. We have a secure and fair food supply system in this province, and as the minister responsible I intend to keep it the best system there is in this country.

Our legislative programs will concentrate on efforts to reduce and simplify our many acts and regulations that have been built up over time. This government does not want business to be choked by red tape. They want the agriculture and fisheries sectors to spend their time competing for markets, not stagnating at the whim of a bureaucratic system which believes that government must interfere in every aspect of business.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is integrating the best of education and economic development with respect and sensitivity for our environment. To service these programs, the actual operational budget of the ministry has risen by some 7 percent. Our complement of 416 full-time professionals and support staff has successfully reduced our levels of financial support to many farm sectors. In real dollar terms Agriculture and Fisheries saved British Columbia taxpayers $12 million over the previous year.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries provides a variety of services. It is an economic development ministry with programs to provide leadership and direction to 130 commodity groups. It is a regional development ministry with a growing focus on our specific regional requirements and more than 25 field offices throughout this province.

We will continue to be responsive to regional needs and have allocated an additional $150,000 in fiscal '90-91 to establish a new aquaculture and fisheries office in the Courtenay-Comox area. The total budget for aquaculture and commercial fisheries will total $3.4 million.

We are a science and technology ministry, as farming and fisheries become more complex from a technical and business perspective. It is our mandate to understand the role of new technology for our industry and to assist with this technological transfer to create stronger programs. One example is our leadership in the dairy industry and its contribution to B.C.'s agribusiness. New technological innovations keep our dairy industry strong, and this year $589,000 has been allocated to the dairy herd improvement services.

Our yearly budget for extension and development has increased to over half a million dollars to continue to provide the latest information and technology transfer to help our sector stay competitive. The economic development of British Columbia in all sectors must be based on the generation of real wealth. Only through real wealth can the pitfalls of tax dependency be avoided. There are many who feel that subsidizing in our sectors represents, in some obscure way, assurance of wealth.

Currently the United States and Europe are engaged in a subsidy war that is having a global effect on the price of grain. Our grain sector in British Columbia will once again produce a first-grade crop. But grain prices are artificially low. Neither the treasury of B.C. nor that of Canada is equipped to fight powers such as the U.S.A. and Europe. But together we will help our grain-farmers to stay competitive.

Our B.C. producers are now producing over 60 percent of the food needs of all British Columbians. What I hear from citizens who write my office is: "Where can I find more genuine B.C. food products? How do I know that these imported foods competing against our B.C. foods are safe?" This year my ministry will take action to meet the needs of both the consumer and the producer. In partnership with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which represents almost 100 different commodities, we will be launching the "B.C. Quality Grown With Care" campaign to promote the economic and cultural contribution of our agriculture and fisheries sectors, as well as identify and promote our quality B.C. products. This program will reinforce in British Columbians the commitment to the world's best-quality food, grown with care in an environment that is looked after so that it will provide food for generations to come.

Ninety-one percent of all British Columbians believe that it is important for British Columbia to be self-sufficient in food production. British Columbians also believe that food produced in British Columbia is equal to or better than food produced elsewhere in terms of taste, freshness and quality. Ninety-five percent of British Columbians believe our food is of better quality, and in general they are willing to pay more because of this quality. Government will commit $1 million to the "B.C. Quality Grown With Care" program over the next two years. This will be bolstered by contributions from the private sector.

This year our ministry is expanding its market-development and trade sector within the ministry. An additional $250,000 is going to be allocated for trade programs to assist in the development of an informed attitude and an understanding of the tremendous opportunities that are opening up for us. This coming year our ministry is planning targeted-marketing strategies that will encourage investment in our aquaculture sector and newer expanded markets for our B.C. premium wines. The diversity of these programs and their competitive thrusts strongly re-

[ Page 11273 ]

flect the industries they represent and a commitment to quality with care in all our products — "B.C. Quality Grown With Care."

[3:00]

I have already mentioned Agriculture Canada's projected 23 percent growth for British Columbia. But there are other positive factors. Farm income in 1990 is predicted to be 21 percent above the previous five-year average. The number of farm borrowers in arrears continues to decline. The number of farm bankruptcies in 1989 was less than half the previous five-year average. The farm-equity ratio is greater than 0.80.

The challenge has always been to find the right support at the right level to promote sustainable growth without interfering with the values that have led this industry to accept the responsibility of their successes and failures. Often in the world of the six o'clock news and the evening paper there are many accusations about the financial stability of our industry and the role of government. In displaying the problems of various regions throughout North America, these perceptions have often overtaken the fact of our viability in B.C.

The recent report of Commissioner Lusztig was a bucket of cold water for the fruit industry. Unfortunately it brought many growers face to face with some of the harsh realities of the new, competitive global marketplace. Some have suggested that this industry should be propped up forever. Others have suggested that it should make it on its own. But everyone wants to see it thrive.

I must point out that the current situation of our tree-fruit industry is not without precedent. Last year the grape and wine industry faced similar problems. But as the result of thoughtful, committed partnership of industry and government, the British Columbia premium-wine industry is now an unfolding success story looking toward a prosperous and profitable future. If the tree-fruit industry is to be vital and efficient at the turn of the century, it must seek answers to three major questions. What is our vision for this industry? Will it be here in five years? Can we define a road map to reach this vision, and what will the vehicle be to deliver this vision?

Based on industry consultation, the Lusztig report and our own ministry expertise, we have been able to answer the first question. We have articulated a realistic vision for the Okanagan tree-fruit industry five years from now. The industry will be a significant contributor to the economy and quality of life within the Okanagan. Within the next five to ten years the Okanagan tree-fruit industry will be restructured, retooled and its produce repositioned. Based on worldwide intelligence and consumer-driven market research, it will regain its positioning as a supplier of world-class products to accurately targeted markets. It will shift from a protectionist, cooperative model to a competitive, free enterprise, market-driven model.

The tree-fruit industry will be self-reliant, with the dominant source of revenue being the marketplace. In order to make this vision a reality, we will need younger, better trained orchardists. The industry as a whole will have to utilize more input from business professionals and community leaders. These younger orchardists will have to be better trained; they will have to work in larger and more efficient operations, and they will have to be more competitive through versatility and ability to adapt quickly to changing consumer demands. Their business decisions will be based on the best possible market intelligence, and their operation of this revitalized tree-fruit industry will shift from debt to equity financing.

The government has had an opportunity to completely look over the Lusztig report. The vehicle we believe will be important to deliver what we see as a future for the industry in the Okanagan over the next decade is a tree-fruit authority. The corporation we are envisioning would be given the legislative mandate to implement an efficient and coordinated approach to the transformation of the Okanagan tree fruit industry.

In partnership with growers, processors and marketers, it will ensure a strong future of economic growth and sustainable development. The authority will be empowered to buy, sell or lease agricultural land, to borrow and lend moneys and to commission research. It will be expected to facilitate orchard renovation and replanting and grower retraining or relocation programs. This active long-term partnership of orchardists, processors, the community and the tree-fruit authority will be strong evidence of this government's commitment to the people and the way of life in British Columbia's interior.

One of the main tasks of every Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is to constantly remind all British Columbians that food does not just happen. Food does not come from the grocery store or the restaurant. The food we eat in British Columbia is a product of the land, the sea and the men and women who work to raise the food and give that special association with Mother Nature.

As I have mentioned before, high technology is rapidly affecting the way we grow food in B.C. However, there is still the basic requirement that we respect and work together with the land and ocean environment that is the source of our wealth.

It is often difficult for mankind in general not to feel totally omnipotent in this modern world. We can control almost anything; we can create marvellous tributes to our progress. We do in fact control the world. But that breaks down when you turn to the basics of our food supply, that are only partially within our control. The weather, droughts, pests and fire are all still very real threats. The only difference between other businesses and agriculture and fisheries is that if natural disasters hit this sector, people just don't eat.

This not only affects the food supply, but also places the financial security of the industry in a great state of flux. The financial stability of the aquaculture industry is constantly being challenged — more often by factors beyond the producers' control.

[ Page 11274 ]

Financial programs of the ministry are designed to reduce farm losses and income fluctuations caused by natural hazards and unpredictable market conditions and to stimulate industry development. While realizing the recent plight of the east coast fishery and the $584 million bail-out the federal government has constructed for that region of the country, I count on the federal government to negotiate with British Columbia with the same no-strings-attached program. One thing is certain: this government will never allow the type of mismanagement in the B.C. fishery that we have seen on the east coast.

As my ministry supports our moves to remain flexible to the shifts in our economic structures for agriculture and fisheries, and with the implementation of the NTS systems that reduce this government's share of farm income assurance, the tax load will be fiscally adjusted to reflect the 5.7 percent reduction in financial assistance funding in the fiscal year 1990-91.

The good fiscal planning of this sector and management of our financial programs to meet all the outside demands and the strength of our sector reflects our commitment to balance the budget and not create the heavy tax burden that will take generations to pay off.

This year the ALDA programs have been expanded in a major and exciting way to include environmental initiatives and business opportunities for the farming and aquaculture community. Management plans to help farmers address serious soil degradation problems and ensure that we keep our production topsoil for the food needs of future generations are now included.

This year our commodities specialists will complete a strategic plan with all our main commodity groups to assist them in their operation. As well, our interministerial initiatives will help bring together our products with programs targeted at markets outside the country to continue to build on this industry's $1.3 billion export contribution to B.C.'s wealth. New investment funding is being recruited in our aquaculture program to tell our amazing story and to track the capital needed to expand the products from an aquaculture sector with a worldwide reputation for diversity and quality.

We are constantly working to modernize and simplify our systems to serve our customers. This year our crop insurance program is fully computerized and our services more cost-effective than ever before. Our service to our stakeholders and business partners is establishing a model to demonstrate that this government is not wasting taxpayers' time and money on control and regulation, but building accessible systems for enterprise to grow and be free of bureaucracy, and be profitable.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries recognizes its role in the daily lives of all British Columbians as the provincial ministry responsible for food. The farmers, fishermen and food processors of this province take pride in supplying domestic and international markets with the highest quality food available anywhere in the world. This ministry will continue to encourage and facilitate agribusiness's ongoing challenge to remain competitive and efficient well into the next century.

MR. BARLEE: Perhaps I should preface my remarks, as I did some time before — in fact, last year — by saying that although the minister and I are on very cordial terms, my views of the agricultural community sometimes are almost diametrically opposed to the minister's.

I should mention that when I first came into the House, when I went down to the members' dining room there were very few British Columbia wines. With another current minister — of course, on the government side — we managed to get some Okanagan wines. But I see that the problem has not been solved. I went to the Empress today and had some curry, and I asked if the curry was British Columbia lamb. "No, no," they said, "it's New Zealand lamb." So I'll probably have to go back to the Empress and make sure they put British Columbia lamb on the menu. We have a long way to go.

There are certain things that I have definite concerns about. I would concur with the minister that certainly $1.1 billion in annual receipts is fairly important. I also think that the industry itself doesn't have the fluctuation of other industries, such as forestry and mining, which hit highs and lows. We tend to get a steady return from agriculture.

But I think there's something else that the minister has perhaps missed. The agriculture community provides more than just food. Food is very important, and an independent source of food is very important. The agricultural community provides a quality of life that we have to be very careful to protect, and I don't think we've done that. I'll give several reasons for that.

In the last few years we've lost about 60,000 acres of agricultural land; that's about 100 square miles. And here we are only trying to protect approximately 2 to 4 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. So that hundred square miles is quite important. Out of that hundred square miles, slightly over 20,000 acres were prime agricultural lands. These prime agricultural lands have been paved over, so there's no return from them. They're gone. I think that's extremely important.

Another thing that bothers me — and a number of things that we'll touch on today, as we canvass this subject — is that the old rate still goes on. There is one farmer going broke every day in British Columbia. This has continued for the last decade or so, and it probably hasn't changed too much. One of the things I am concerned with is the agricultural land reserve. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

There are other civilized countries that have our equivalent of the ALR, as the minister well knows, and they have been extremely careful to protect their agricultural lands. I would like to know, in figures — either acres or hectares — how much land within the ALR was lost from the beginning until the end of 1989. How much land was taken out for golf courses,

[ Page 11275 ]

highways, urban projects or something like that? I'd like the minister's comments on that. Surely he'd have those figures at his fingertips.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Whether I have the exact figures, I'm not sure, because it depends on several applications that are before the process and on some that have not been finalized. I can tell you that 60,000 hectares have not come out, that I am aware of — certainly not in 1989. I think you're talking about since the inception of the land reserve, which goes back to 1972 or 1973. I don't believe very much, that I can recollect, of that 60,000 total you are referring to came out in '89. There was some redefining of boundaries. There was the fine-tuning process that changed, by order-in-council, a lot of regional district boundaries — for what would be kept in the agricultural land reserve and what would be best taken out. That was done by the Agricultural Land Commission, and the recommendations were made for the orders-in-council. That was the consultative process that took place between a lot of those communities — the fine-tuning process of where agricultural land should be kept and, of course, at the same time, taking a look at community plans where communities were expanding and asking for consideration of which lands were preferred for agriculture and which lands could be defined for other uses.

[3:15]

Of 100 appeals to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion — if I remember the figures correctly — I believe close to 96.6 percent are handled by the Agricultural Land Commission. The vast majority are handled by the commission. The ELUC appeals amount to about 3.36 percent; it's not a very big percentage. If you take a look at the amount of land that's dealt with from the point of view of the ELUC, the appointed committee of cabinet, it is a very small percentage of the total of the applications that actually come forward to the Agricultural Land Commission.

I can provide you the figures for 1989. I can have staff look that up, but it would require a call to the Land Commission office in Vancouver.

MR. BARLEE: I thank the minister for his answer, which, of course, wasn't precise, and that's all right. Perhaps at the same time the minister could give me the approximate acreage. By the way, I did not say "hectares"; I said 60,000 acres since the inception. Hectares, of course, would be two and a half times as much.

Perhaps the minister can give me the approximate acreage taken out of the ALR since the order-in-council of June 1988 that allowed golf courses to be taken out of ALR lands. I'm rather concerned about how many of those acres taken out for golf courses were prime agricultural land. Thirdly, I am inclined to look at some of these proposed golf courses as very thinly veiled condominium developments. What percentage of each acre is allowed for condominium development? That's a very important question.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If you look at order-in-council 1141 — if I remember the number correctly — it allows for use for a golf course within the ALR. It does not allow for the land to come out of the agricultural land reserve. We ought to be very clear on that. There is some feeling out there that if you have a golf course, the land is automatically out of the ALR. But it isn't. The order-in-council does not allow it to come out of the ALR. It's a use that's allowed within. If for any reason that land is required for future food production — albeit, it may be expensive to convert — it is there to do so, because it's still classified as part of the ALR.

MR. BARLEE: I think the minister misses the point. If there's condominium development on those golf courses, it's very difficult to put them back into growing something, and I would think it would be extremely expensive. Does the minister or his staff have any way of monitoring these thinly veiled developments which are still in the ALR?

Say, for instance, I just put up a quite an expensive building in Penticton, and I noticed that behind my building they were building dozens of condominiums on the old Penticton golf course, which we'll say is another golf course within the ALR. What is the percentage?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that number in front of me, but I'm not so sure that the Penticton golf course would necessarily have been in the ALR. I'm not aware of any of those under 1141 that would have a subdivision proposal that would be accepted by anybody, because the five conditions laid out in the order-in-council state that you cannot do that. I'm not fearful, quite frankly, of that changing, because if there is pressure, the act is pretty clear and the order-in-council is pretty clear: it stays in the ALR. You can't have a condominium development in the ALR. Under the Municipal Act, you would require zoning changes, because you couldn't do it in the ALR. There's a maximum number of residences per parcel — one or two homes — within the ALR. Therefore you could not do it under the Municipal Act.

MR. BARLEE: Do you think that ELUC, the Environmental and Land Use Committee, should still be ruling on between 3 and 4 percent of the appeals to the Agricultural Land Commission? I think that should stay in the hands of those professionals, but this practice is still going on. And it seems to me — and we touched upon this last year — that there were certain individuals, such as R.J. Bennett, brother of the former Premier, who, without much difficulty, can get a number of parcels of land out of the ALR by an appeal to ELUC. What is the minister's stand on that? Do you really think that ELUC, which is essentially the inner cabinet, should be overruling or interfering with the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission?

[ Page 11276 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not aware of that particular person's parcel of land coming to ELUC. I've not been made aware of it, and I don't think that was the case. I believe the Agricultural Land Commission itself made the decision on that.

As far as ELUC making decisions is concerned, I guess you're suggesting that the Land Commission should have the final say; I assume that's what you're driving at. They do take care of very close to 97 percent of it and that's a large percentage. I guess if you go to court and you don't have a right to appeal, you live by the final decision. Every process should have an appeal. Whether ELUC is the right route or not, I wouldn't want to speculate that there might be at some point some better way. That would be future policy. I do understand that the vast majority of the decisions are made by the Agricultural Land Commission, and when ELUC makes a decision, it's really made in consultation with the Agricultural Land Commission, to understand their position on it.

MR. BARLEE: I'm interested in the minister's answer, in that he gave a little ground on this. Any appeal should not be with a political body; it should be entirely separate; it should be an independent body. If it's 96 percent, why not go the full 100 percent? Let the Agricultural Land Commission operate entirely independently, without any appeal to a political body.

However, we'll take perhaps an abrupt turn. Let's get onto the free trade issue. The impact of the free trade agreement — and your party voted unanimously for the free trade agreement when it was presented several years ago.... What is the minister's assessment of the impact of the free trade agreement on the farming community?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It wouldn't be the first time I've said that we knew there were going to be some problems from the horticultural sector point of view We've argued hard and long with the federal government. As the hon. member knows, I in my capacity as minister responsible in British Columbia and several other ministers across Canada have stated very emphatically that, even with the duties, surtaxes and so on that were applicable in some cases, and the agreement for the most favoured nations, etc.... We knew that in the phasing-in of the reduction of duties over the next ten years there were going to be some difficulties in some sectors. That was made very clear to the federal government in the discussions that were going on in the bilateral trade negotiations.

In the case of a lot of the vegetable crops and some of the fruit crops, there will be some harm. But there will also be a lot of opportunities. There will be opportunities for growth in a lot of the sectors. I can tell you, if you take an overall assessment of free trade, there is opportunity for growth in the cattle industry and in the grain sectors. There is an opportunity for enhancement and for jobs for more and more people involved in it.

It has to be understood that when we are dealing in a bilateral agreement.... You only need to expand a little beyond that and look at GATT. You have a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that says that there are 95 countries trying to reduce boundaries that are stagnating freer trade. Those boundaries in some cases are non-tariff barriers, and in some cases are obviously tariff barriers. You can talk about subsidies and about trade barriers. There needs to be a clear look at where we can do best in agriculture. Given the same competitive capabilities as some of our trading partners, agriculture in British Columbia, and in Canada for that matter, will be able to compete in a lot of sectors. Beyond that, there are specific sectors, as I said a moment ago, and possibly as you may well have heard yourself.... We do see some — if I can use the word — spotted areas of concern relative to the horticultural sector.

MR. BARLEE: The minister is making a tacit admission that there are sectors of the agricultural community definitely at peril. He mentioned there were some vegetable growers and berry growers — and of course, soft fruits. What about the milk producers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The milk producers and poultry producers — if I can cover eggs, turkey and chicken — will certainly rely on the sustaining of article 11 under GATT. In the discussions that are going on in the Uruguay round, which hopefully will be wound up somewhere near the end of December, it will depend on Canada's defence of article 11. Article 11 was granted to Canada to provide for supply management systems. It was grandfathered in the bilateral trade agreement but will certainly be under challenge, in my opinion, in the Uruguay round that we're now undertaking.

We have said very strongly and emphatically that British Columbia and several other provinces should be part of those presentations whenever they are held in Geneva. It's extremely important that we respond to the concerns expressed by our agricultural sector. We are asking the federal government to give us the opportunity to be part and parcel of the discussion.

MR. BARLEE: Our past record on the defence of articles under GATT has been very dismal. Our defence is extremely porous; it's like a bloody sieve. We always lose. We are the junior partner in this. When the United States wants something, they invariably get it.

I'll give you an example. Here's how the dairy industry is doing since the inception of the free trade agreement. It is estimated that as much as $72 million annually is lost to the dairy industry. That's $1.5 million a week. What they say is this: the lost income to B.C. dairymen and the lost jobs at processing plants are an extremely serious concern to the industry. And indeed they are. The minister's missed the point.

Let me give you a couple of figures about the crossings. The crossings are brutal. We have people working in British Columbia going across to the United States — they call them the gas and milk

[ Page 11277 ]

crossings — since the free trade agreement came into effect. In March, April and May of 1988, 53,000 cars per annum went across the border crossing at Pacific Highway. It's now 121,000 cars per annum. At Aldergrove, it was 45,000 cars in '88. In '89, it's 75,000 cars, These crossings have jumped from 400,000 to almost 600,000 in one year. And that's not the end of it.

[3:30]

The industry is complaining that the reason people are going across the line is the cheap price of gas. But I'm saying that this government benefits from that. Sure, the dairymen lose $72 million, but the government gains. Why does the government gain? The government gains because this government — who say they don't tax consumers — taxes them to the blasted hilt. This government charges more per litre than the federal government, and they're greedy as the devil. The federal government charges about 11 cents per litre; the provincial government charges 12 cents. That's 23 cents between the two of them. Is there some tacit agreement between the oil companies and the provincial and federal governments? I can go across and buy Shell gas in the United States for 32.9 cents; I come to Victoria and pay 59.9 cents.

What does Shell make on it? Well, let's examine Shell's role. Shell makes a gross average of 37 cents a litre in Canada in Canadian funds. What does it make in the States? It makes 24 cents a litre, so it's making 13 cents a litre more. Instead of paying 59.0 for unleaded gas in downtown Victoria, you should be paying 46. Is there some sort of agreement between the multinational oil companies and the provincial and federal governments? It sure looks like it. Every penny of that tax produces $25 million or $26 million in direct revenue to the provincial government. So that 12 cents is producing about $250 million, if my figures are close. I got several figures from the ministry; they varied somewhat.

I am saying that you are penalizing the dairymen We're letting these people pick up gas in the States because you're making $250 million. So what if the dairy industry is losing $72 million? So what if Canadian jobs are going down the drain? This government is making $250 million on charging our consumers a heck of a lot more than they should be paying for gas. I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope the hon. member opposite appreciates that some of that gas and oil may well come from underneath a farmer's field somewhere in this great North American continent of ours.

I would also like to point out that if we are to provide the services required for the people of British Columbia, whether it is health care, education, social services, housing.... You can go on and on and on. How on earth do you expect to raise the revenue to supply those services? They don't come out of pie in the sky, let me assure you. It's got to be generated from some source. If we are to continue to provide what I believe to be a good service to the people of British Columbia — we have a health care system that is great; we have an education system that is excellent — then I believe it requires funding to administer it. Whether it's gasoline taxation or smoking taxation — whatever the taxation revenue is, whatever source it is from; income tax or whatever — there has to be a balance between taxation and expenditures. Some of that taxation on gasoline, I am sure, from the point of view of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, is probably put towards the construction of highways.

Let me assure the hon. member that as for the milk and the dairy products he talked about, and probably the poultry products as well, the federal government has a responsibility if it insists that it be done. That's the point we have tried to make as a government — that there are duties that should be paid.

I have argued long and hard that people who have goods to claim should be in one line, and tourists coming to enjoy the facilities of beautiful British Columbia on a holiday or whatever — it may be on business — please let them come through. But for those who go down to try to save money on gasoline, on food.... I think it has to be fair. You ought to try to do it the other way: you'll not get very far. Just to try to find out, I have tried to take product the other way. You can't, because they'll take it away from you.

Why in the world is the Canadian government not doing the same darned thing? They have a right to collect duties, and they should do so. I really strongly believe — and have fought for this for my whole tenure in this ministry — in having fairness in the system. We expect everything as British Columbians, and God help us, I hope we can keep it up.

It would be nice to continue the services we've been able to provide for British Columbians. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a cost involved in doing so, and it's generally through taxation.

MR. BARLEE: I think the minister is masking the issue and really missing the point. I'm asking why Shell Oil, Exxon or Texaco make 13 cents a litre more in British Columbia. If you take that 13 cents a litre off, you're going to cut the cross-border traffic down to a trickle. If people can get gas at a reasonable price in British Columbia, which they're not getting, they're not going to go across to the States. That's quite obvious.

I'm saying that there must be a tacit agreement between the provincial government, the federal government and the multinational oil companies. They used to say, when the price of gas went up.... They used to put it right on their pumps: this is such-and-such a tax. They never do it anymore. I was talking to one of the dealers in the Okanagan the other day, who shall go unnamed. He said: "Bill, every time the provincial government puts its tax up 1 cent, we put it up an extra 2 cents." So they're part and parcel of the whole agreement.

It's not only hurting the agricultural community. It's hurting the tourist industry, and it's hurting it badly. I talk to many American visitors who come across the line. They can't believe the price of gas and

[ Page 11278 ]

oil. I'm saying that if I were minister, I would have been on them like a flash. I would be on Shell Oil; I would be on Exxon. I'd ask them: "What the heck are you doing? Where is this unwritten agreement?" There must be an unwritten agreement, because the prices are diametrically opposed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I certainly won't debate that. I don't think it's part and parcel of my estimates, but I'll certainly pass those comments on to the minister responsible.

MR. BARLEE: I'll come back to the minister on a different tack. The minister alluded to the marketing boards. Everybody seems to have a marketing board, but this government seems to be a little loath to accept some of the marketing boards in British Columbia, saying that the consumer suffers. I think that an orderly marketing scheme is important. Was the minister, for instance, in favour of disbanding the Milk Marketing Board last year, as was indicated in those hearings? I am curious to see what the minister's stand was on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Would the hon. member please define what hearings he was referring to? I assume it was a task force.

MR. BARLEE: That's correct.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you. The clear answer is no, I'm not against marketing boards, and we were not trying to get rid of them.

MR. BARLEE: If you weren't trying to get rid of them and if you're not against marketing boards, why was the task force undertaken? Certainly the dairy industry didn't want it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The task force was structured to see what opportunities would be made available by discussing some different proposals relative to supply management. Where else could we possibly expand our market opportunities? That's basically what the task force was trying to do — take a look at other opportunities for our industry: was there potential for new product development. There was no intention to do away with the marketing board.

MR. BARLEE: The Lusztig commission report suggested that this government not back the national marketing scheme for apples, and yet according to the government communique of that day, this minister stated that he was almost in complete accord with the findings of the Lusztig commission. One of their major points was that this government should not back a national marketing scheme.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I certainly will not comment on what Mr. Lusztig thought, or what he thought would work relative to his recommendations. I expressed my own point of view that I would like to see the fruit growers address how, particularly in their sector, you would define which orchards would be part and parcel of supply management and which ones would not, and how you would define how much of one particular variety of apple you would put into a supply management area as opposed to other varieties. It would be quite a task when the supply and management system could only look after the domestic consumption of Canada.

MR. BARLEE: I was listening quite carefully to the minister, and he said he had a success in the vineyards industry. Approximately two and a half years ago there were 3,500 acres in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys — central Okanagan, the southern part of the Similkameen Valley and the southern part of the Okanagan Valley. These individuals were doing very well. With the onset of free trade, those 3,500 acres shrunk to about 1,200 acres, so approximately one-third of those acres of those vineyard operators are left. Admittedly there was a buy-out, but the buy-out does not help the cause of agriculture generally, especially when I find that the government didn't do its homework.

And I'll tell you why it didn't do its homework. There was a study at the Dominion research station in Summerland by a Dr. Helmut Becker, who is a West German scientist acknowledged as one of the leading experts on white wine in the world. This individual, who has made a lifelong study of this, stated that because of the peculiar balance between the acids and the sugars in the soils of the Okanagan, because of the clarity of our sunlight, and because of the north-south valley system, we could grow a green grape that would produce white wines rivaling and perhaps surpassing the finest white wines in the world. That study was available, but evidently it was ignored by the government at the time. I'm very curious to see why you ignored that study.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not aware of the government absolutely ignoring this study. The government was trying to deal with the bilateral agreement between the two countries. A lot of people would tell you — and some of those in the grape industry who had their grapes pulled out would tell you — that the particular varieties of grapes that we were growing would not yield the particularly good wines that you are referring to.

What we are now saying and trying to encourage through the new wine industry act and certainly through the opportunities that will present themselves with the planting of proper vinifera or whatever type of variety that will provide a very good wine.... That's the encouragement we are passing on to the industry. I agree with you that there is a potential to grow excellent wines, even though the micro-climate maps that prevail throughout the world say you probably couldn't do it here. But the fact of the matter is that the Okanagan has a great potential to produce some of the best wines in the world.

[ Page 11279 ]

MR. BARLEE: Of course, the Minister of Agriculture must shoulder some of the responsibility there. I've talked to many of the growers, and they were encouraged to grow some of those very varieties. Some of them had just come to the stage where they were producing — and suddenly they're out of business. I don't think the ministry did its background work there.

Will this 1,200 acres eventually come back to the 3,500 acres that were in that particular area of British Columbia, which the minister admitted is really quite unique, capable of growing very fine grapes and capable of producing excellent wines? Will that 1,200 acres come to 3,500 acres? I'll tell you why that's important, Mr. Minister. I think there's a special ambiance in the southern Okanagan and the Similkameen that doesn't exist elsewhere. I think both the minister and I will agree that we do not want to see housing roof-top to roof-top from Vernon to the border. But will that 1,200 acres come back to 3,500 acres within a decade?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I guess if I could predict that, I wouldn't be in this job. Quite frankly, I would hope it would. I would hope the opportunities present themselves. But I couldn't crystal-ball gaze and say that the 3,500 acres will be fully producing ten years from now — say in the year 2000. But I strongly believe that the industry, given the new thrust it has and the new capacity under the Wine Act, will certainly make a strong endeavour to produce very good premium wines. Perhaps at some point it will get back up to the 3,500 acres and with God willing and good marketing, make it beyond that. I agree with you; I would not like to see it go into homes, but into agricultural production and continued use producing top-quality grapes.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, that is an incomplete answer. It seems the Americans are a step ahead of us, as usual, and I get tired of it. Our family has been Canadian for generations.

I got a call from Mr. Nick Bavarro, who has a checkered career, in California. He's a major grower of grapes in various parts of California. I had met him before, and I tried to discourage him, but he was not about to be discouraged. He phoned me up and said: "Is there any chance of me picking up 500 acres in the south Okanagan, specifically on the north-eastern side of Osoyoos Lake?"

[3:45]

I drive by that every day, and I see what has happened to those vineyards on the north-eastern part — the Monashee Vineyards on Osoyoos Lake. I'm quite close to this country, and it cuts a little deeply. So here's an American who recognizes the opportunities in Canada and is quite willing to make a deal, and I have to digress. I have to say we're not interested. He has come back again, and I put him off again. So they seem to be able to see the opportunities in Canada which we can't see. That's absolutely astounding to me. As to the "success," which was the word of the minister when he was referring to the vineyards and the wineries of the Okanagan, there is some limited success. I will give the minister some credit. I think your latest plan is relatively good on balance, and I'll commend the ministry officials for doing that. Mind you, you haven't got enough experts working for you.

Washington State is a prime example. They were down to two wineries about four or five years ago; now they have 60. They have done an excellent job. I hope you've taken a page out of their background work.

I alluded to the Lusztig commission report. What did it cost the government — $400,000? What is the final cost of this report? It is by and large ignored by the government, by the way. I would have rather seen that $400,000 or $500,000 go out to 500 growers and say, "Here you are, boys; here's $1,000 each," because essentially this report is flawed. The research in the report wasn't very good. It was not accepted by the community at large. It really is a very poor report.

The Lusztig commission operated within a very narrow mandate, which gave you exactly what type of report that was expected back. Unfortunately, the only problem was that it cost votes all the way down the line. I know orchardists who had never voted anything but the government side for 30 years; they're finished. I don't care if the government comes in with a bail-out package or not. They are finished, because they don't trust the government.

Now you're saying that we must be able to compete on an international market. How can these guys compete on an international market? They can't do it. Our land prices are usually higher. The price of fuel and machinery is higher. We cannot compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis. We simply can't do it.

This may be future policy, but I'll ask it anyway. Your original opinion, which is on the record, was that you accepted it, and that it was a step in the right direction and so on. What is your opinion now of the Lusztig commission report?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I guess we can look at reports that have gone through several ministries over many years. We can accept parts of some. We can criticize them. Some are never implemented. But from the point of view of this report, if we're to position the fruit industry for the nineties and into the next millennium, I believe that something has to be done. I do not believe that automatically continuing to ad hoc an industry necessarily positions them for the future. I think we'd be totally irresponsible if we did not try to address for the fruit growers, who I have a great deal of confidence in.... They are farmers like a lot of other farmers in this province, and I believe we should do everything we can to help them position themselves for the rest of this decade and certainly into the next century. I believe it would irresponsible not to do so. If we do not look at ways of trying to help that industry to replant and do more research or offer better opportunities for them in marketing, then I think we have abdicated our responsibility to position them for the opportunities that will present themselves in the years ahead.

[ Page 11280 ]

You gave several examples, hon. member, of costs that may be higher here. Why are they higher? You said land costs. I believe that land costs, as in any other sector, whether it's real estate or farmland, vary quite substantially. Some years they're high; some years they drop down. They are unpredictable in a lot of sectors. It happens in farming and in any other sector: if you buy in high and prices go down, it's very difficult to get a return on that investment.

I do know that some in the fruit industry have complimented us for looking at possibilities of changing how the fruit industry might have a better opportunity to increase their objectivity as far as incomes are concerned and their objectivity in marketing fruit not only here in Canada but in other areas of the world as well. The British Columbia tree-fruit industry — certainly their apples — has a great reputation worldwide. We as a government are committed to helping that industry, and we will continue to do so. But at the same time, we want to position them to look ahead and at how we can help them achieve that.

MR. BARLEE: I think the minister made an accurate statement when he said the measures taken had been ad hoc. Since 1975, which is fully 15 years, those measures, according to the commission report.... It says this: "The commission has concluded that too many of the support programs were established and too large a percentage of scarce funds was released in an ad hoc fashion." I think both of us agree with this. This has been 15 years, not 15 days or 15 months. It has gone on and on. Now suddenly, with an election looming — the timing seems to be almost coincidental — the government is very concerned about the tree-fruit industry.

We've recommended that there should be a short-term extraordinary grant of 10 cents a pound, followed by a long-term plan. We know that there will have to be adjustments in the industry. We know that in some instances the agricultural land reserve should be more flexible where there are frost pockets, where there are gravel piles and so on. We realize that. But it has taken this government 15 years to come down to this, with a considerable amount of pressure applied in the House.

I'm saying it's almost 12 o'clock for some of these guys if the government does not react, and I mean react immediately. I know growers who have grown profitably for 30 years. In the last three or four years they've suffered severe economic conditions, and they simply can't make it. They're on to their last assets. The minister knows that as well as I do. The minister must be listened to in the inner cabinet. I'm saying that the minister — and I don't think he can pass it off as future policy, because I'm allowed to question him on that — has to go to that inner cabinet and say: "Look, they do need an extraordinary grant." I'm sure the minister knows that. I know that not all of these individuals are going to survive in the long run. We both know that. But to put them on what we call a level playing-field, a phrase that this government uses so often.... Let's put them on the level playing-field and then let's inaugurate a long-term plan for the fruit industry. Obviously this is not being done.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Here's another example, and this example is really quite astounding to me. Here's a guy who is drawing a steady salary; he has his own national marketing agency; and he gets $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. He made this statement on page 152 of the Lusztig commission report: "It is the commission's firm view that supply management, if implemented...." Now everybody has supply management. The doctors of this province ask for a certain fee, and they get it. The oil companies, as we alluded to before, ask for a certain price, and they sure get it — in conjunction with the provincial and federal governments, of course. The retail stores and the banks get their fees. This guy, who's drawing $60,000 or $70,000 a year, is really worried about a national marketing scheme which means that the grower can get an average return of 15 or 16 cents a pound. I go to the store and buy apples for 81 cents, 89 cents or $1 a pound; the grower gets as little as two and a half cents a pound.

It's incredible. Why these guys didn't vote against you before is absolutely beyond my comprehension; it fairly astonishes me. But I think they're finished.

What I'm saying is that Lusztig operated within this very narrow mandate given by the provincial government. He goes on to say: "...if implemented, will be a burden to consumers." That makes me laugh. For heaven's sake — a burden to consumers! Since 1986 this government has put on the backs of the people of British Columbia 634 separate increases in taxes, fees and so on. If you don't think I'm right, check it.

You find that funny. You're making $50,000 a year. I know guys who are barely.... The first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Messmer) finds that funny. I don't find it funny. Individuals on their last assets can't afford to pay the high price of fuel, the high price of equipment and these high taxes and fees. I don't find that funny at all.

More importantly, he says: "Supply management will deal with neither the underlying problems of the B.C. apple industry nor the long-term needs of the orchardists." The orchardists voted on that in Kelowna, and 95.2 percent said they do need a national marketing scheme. I think the minister knows this; yet here it comes out, in the very commission report that cost $400,000 or $500,000.... First of all, I'd like to know how much the report cost. Secondly, I'd like to know whether the minister agrees with that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The report cost approximately $400,000, if I'm not mistaken. Regarding your reference to the issue of how the tree-fruit industry is dealt with, the Lusztig commission report states that a lot of things should be done, albeit some things recommended in the report are not feasible to do. That doesn't mean to say the government accepts the full report. The government will look at the report,

[ Page 11281 ]

assess what merit there is in it. It will not be done by itself. This government has gone out and met with the industry. My staff have spent a considerable amount of time meeting with the industry.

You talked about the national supply management system. It's fair to say that Mr. Lusztig did not recommend that the B.C. tree-fruit industry go into supply management. But I can tell you that under the national farm products marketing act.... The hearings will get underway in Kelowna tomorrow, I believe, and they will be processed on through under the federal act. We do not contest that in any way. The hearings will go on. I'm not arguing that case one bit. I think what Lusztig is saying is that he does not supply management per se as the answer to the industry, because supply management will address the domestic side of the product, but it will have difficulty addressing the supply side for what is exported.

You talk, hon. member, about the markups that take place in stores or the marketing boards. You refer to doctors and so on. It does not necessarily mean that every supply management system has the right to set a price. There are supply management systems in this province, as you well know, that have nothing to do with setting price. They manage the production by acreage or whatever, by contract. They do not necessarily set the price at which it must be sold; that's left up to the individual processor, whatever it happens to be, when they're competing in the marketplace.

Your doctors' fees and other fees that you use as an example — fair enough; those are established at a level. But not all commodities are. I wish the tree-fruit industry had a price at the farm gate. That would be great. Then the system from there on could look after the costs. If the fruit producer could get 15.5 or 16 cents out of the farm gate, then he would not have to bear the cost of the packing-houses or the retail or whatever sector is bearing down on him in the cost-price squeeze. When you refer to 89 or 91 cents or whatever number you want to use, the retailer is obviously caught with some product that has to be disposed of. It's not guaranteed that every pound on the intake side goes out the door of a store. A lot of us have been in stores where sorting takes place three and four times a day to sort out product that is starting to decay or whatever and is less than desirable to present to the consumer; therefore that is marketed out, and there's a cost for that. I would surely like to see the producer get a fair return if possible. I'd be the last person to deny a farmer the right to a fair return for the work he puts in to feed people in this country, because I think he is the most deserving of any of getting a fair market return.

[4:00]

MR. BARLEE: On page 160 of the same report the Lusztig commission says that it has recommended that a further advance payment be made by government beyond the two cents per pound already advanced. Then they come up with this eloquent statement about three-quarters of a cent a pound to three cents a pound for all other varieties. So three-quarters of a cent a pound for all Delicious varieties, which account for the majority of apples grown in the Okanagan and Similkameen and Creston Valleys. Three quarters of a cent! He shouldn't even put it in. Up to three cents for other varieties — that's astonishing! Even the commissioner should have been given a mandate there that states: "Look, they do need an extraordinary grant." Do you think three-quarters of a cent to three cents a pound is even close to being adequate?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I suppose I should not comment on future policy decisions about what amounts will be made, but I'm certainly concerned about the returns for apple producers, as I said just a few minutes ago, or for tree-fruit producers for that matter. As a government, certainly we'll try to be as fair as we possibly can to the tree-fruit industry, as we have been in the past, even though we well recognize that there have been a lot of price fluctuations in that industry.

As you say, hon. member, there are examples of people who got two and a half, three, three and a half cents a pound for their produce, but there are also, as I understand it, apple producers of specific varieties in the Okanagan who have exceeded their actual cost of production. Varieties do play a major role in the return to the fruit producer. It's important to recognize that if you went on a varietal basis, it would be difficult to do; you'd then have to assess whether in doing varieties, do you do a grade of the variety or do you respect the overall fruit production, which we have done in the past, based on seeing better fruit? I think that's the only way we can address the problem at this stage, even though some sectors are doing extremely well.

MR. BARLEE: I find that interesting, because most of these growers put in the Red Delicious apples under the instruction of the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, and now they are having to take them out. There's no guarantee, of course, that we can compete on the international marketplace against New Zealand on a dollar-for-dollar basis. We can't compete against New Zealand or Brazil or Chile or the United States.

For instance, in the state of Washington they grow about 110 million boxes of apples per year. We grow about nine million. We are really a penny-ante player. Therefore we may go to another variety of apple — and we have gone to a number: Fuji.... They are numerous, but this does not guarantee us a place in the international marketplace. There has to be another look at it.

The interesting thing in this is that when I turned to page 174 — which is the second to last page in this report — I was almost floored by this remark. This is by a man who has presumably studied the marketplace. He's a man of considerable intellect, but he has a right-wing bias. He says this, concerning the wholesalers and retailers of British Columbia: "This com-

[ Page 11282 ]

mission has found no real evidence of predatory behaviour." That's probably the great laugh of 1990.

Mind you, I would not question the integrity of Jimmy Pattison and Save-On-Foods. Jimmy Pattison has been known for his humanistic outlook towards his consumers and the people who go to his stores. But that is an astonishing statement. All the studies, all the individuals.... Here's a grower getting four cents or six cents a pound; they're getting 89 cents a pound in the store. There's no evidence? What other evidence do you need? Has the minister done anything? Have they gone to the major food chains to say: "Look, these guys are last on the ladder. They're the last rung. Sometimes they're below the last rung." Have you gone to these guys? Have you gone to Jimmy Pattison? Have you gone to Safeway? Have you discussed the problem with them?

If our industry is to survive — and this is a sector at peril; all of us know this — there are other values that come into play. The minister knows this as well as I do. That's what makes me so annoyed at him sometimes, because he's quite aware of it. There are other values. There's that long-term look at the value of these lands, not just to the orchardist, not just to the small businessman whom it impacts on, not just to the tourism industry which it impacts on, but to everyone in the province of British Columbia.

We have to take that holistic, wider perspective, that longer view, and ask: "Are we going to keep these lands despite the short term?" Is there really a long-term plan? There has not been any evidence of a long-term plan for 15 long years. These guys have been on the branch for 15 years. Really, they are waiting. What is the long-term plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member would know that anything in the way of a long-term plan is being worked on, but decisions are that of future policy. I cannot reveal them at this instant, but of course we will be working on their future.

You and I and anybody in this assembly know very well how important the tree-fruit industry is to this province. You heard me say in my opening comments how important the agriculture and fisheries sectors are to this province. I respect that very much. I hope it improves.

I also stated to you and to the members of this assembly that B.C. is the only province in this country that will show nearly a 23 percent increase in income levels. It's the only one in Canada that can boast of that kind of return on investment in agriculture and the crops they grow.

That is not to say.... The point we are just referring to, the plight of the tree-fruit industry, is something we have to try to deal with, to try to position the industry for the future. That's an endeavour I am undertaking and will continue to work on, to try and give not just the people of British Columbia but the people who are directly involved in it some faith in their future. It's very important that we address the issues — which we will be bringing forward at some point in the very near future — as constructively as we can to try to position the industry. I want to see those fruit growers survive as much as you do. I want to see that land being used for producing food as much as you do. It's extremely important as well.

Earlier you stated that some of those lands are in frost pockets. Are there other opportunities in agriculture for that land? If it isn't in tree fruits, maybe there are other opportunities. We should look at those. I agree with you on that point.

We will do everything we possibly can as a government to try and help the industry. Although the Lusztig commission of inquiry has made recommendations that may well be controversial.... We have to look at every recommendation, whether it's the Lusztig report or other reports or other individuals' advice, including the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, as to how we can best help them for the future.

MR. BARLEE: You are very civil, Mr. Minister; you usually are. I don't always agree with you. There are a few things we have to take exception to.

First of all, we do not compete on a level-playing field. It is not a dollar-to-dollar basis. For instance, the National Farmers' Union sent out some information I was reading a month or so ago. They say this on page 2 of the last report, talking about British Columbia farms, specifically in the Peace River: "A crisis situation exists for many farmers." That flies in the face of what you've just said. "While the Farm Credit Corporation reports that farmland values in B.C. declined by 26 percent in the 1984-89 period, outstanding farm debt in the province increased from $1.185 billion to $1.194 billion." Land values are going down, and the debt is going up. It looks like they're in tough shape.

This very same report, for instance, had another statement which I found kind of revealing. It shows that this province is not as in touch as other provinces. Alberta and Ontario certainly have more programs to help the farmer. For instance, they give us an indication: "Again, we ask the British Columbia government to reconsider the disparity between B.C.'s and Alberta's programs for its farmers." These guys know what they're talking about.

A specific example is the current price disparity between B.C. and Alberta in gas and diesel prices. The Alberta farmer pays 17.3 cents per litre for gas; the British Columbia farmer pays 32 cents per litre. That's almost double, and it doesn't just end there, Mr. Minister; it goes on.

I just got something from Ontario a few weeks ago: financial assistance programs available to Ontario farmers, who are facing some of the same problems we're facing. Here are some of the financial assistance programs they have: Ontario Farm-Start; operating loan guarantee program; Ontario young farmer credit program; soil maintenance grant; advisory services; farm family adviser program; Farmers' Helpline; Ontario farm tax rebate program; gasoline tax refund program; fuel tax refund program; fuel coloration program sales tax exemptions. It goes on for pages. We hardly have any compared to Ontario and Alberta. It's really quite astonishing. Is the

[ Page 11283 ]

minister working on that? Is he approaching some of those problems that are very, very obvious?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, we are working on some of those, and I know there are discrepancies between fuel prices in Alberta and B.C. — and grain prices. You could go on and on; you can take comparisons from across this land. But it seems to me that if we're going to improve our income status by some 23 percent, then that is not the major concern this year. It is a concern of mine that we try and give our farmers an opportunity equal to that presented in other provinces.

I think it's important to recognize, when you look at the discussions that are going on in reducing farm subsidies, that that's one type of farm help. The fear now is that Canada is one of the worst in the world. Somebody at some point is going to have to deal with the issue of how you address providing help to farmers. I'd love to help farmers as much as the rest, but we are also cognizant that some of these issues may well be countervailable, and we therefore have to be very careful how we help the issue of giving our farmers some ability to compete with these other areas, whether it's next door in Alberta or across the Prairies, or Ontario, or wherever. It's extremely important — there's no doubt in my mind — and I'll do everything I can to try and help B.C. farmers. I also think, hon. member, that we have to recognize how we distribute that help without being subjected to some countervailing action.

MR. BARLEE: You know, I'd like to see us tackle the Americans on GATT some time; they always tackle us. I get tired of the Americans, I really do. They call me anti-American; that's probably partially true. You know, we are always being countervailed; we are always getting tackled under various conditions of GATT; and we always lose. We are remarkable losers, and I get very tired of it.

[4:15]

The minister referred to a 23 percent increase in receipts to the farming community. A lot of that is from the greenhouses. A greenhouse is not a greenbelt. I'm saying that the quality of life does not come from greenhouse; it comes from a greenbelt. I'm saying that the people of British Columbia generally agree that the agricultural greenbelts of British Columbia are important to their quality of life, and I have to hit that message home time and time again. The minister knows it as well as I do. The only trouble is I feel sorry for the minister, because he has to face the inner cabinet, and that's the one thing I would hate to do.

We talk about the grain farmers. The grain farmers in the Peace River are having a heck of a tough time. What are we going to do? There are thousands and thousands of acres of planted grain up there; we know that there's a worldwide surplus of grain. Have we anything on the table?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are presently trying to address the particular issue you are talking about in the Peace River, so I'm not at liberty to tell you what the details are, obviously; but we are working towards some sort of help to alleviate what seems to be a disastrous price year for them. On top of that, as you well know, we've also had some inclement weather that has affected their capabilities for possibly having a good crop this year.

MR. BARLEE: I again thank the minister for a civil answer.

Let's go to something more important. This tells me exactly where the Agriculture ministry is in the echelon — on the ladder. If we take a look at the ministry's own budget.... These are your figures, not mine. We'll take a look. It goes over to page 35. I look at the 21 ministries on the line, and I see their increases. My heavens, an election is coming down the pike! Here are the increases: 13.4 percent to Advanced Education, Training and Technology; the Attorney-General's ministry gets 15.7 percent; Education gets 15.2 percent; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources gets a whopping 77 percent; Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture gets 15 percent; Regional and Economic Development gets 13 percent; Solicitor-General gets 13.5 percent. The overall average — and I know what the minister is going to say — is 9.8 percent, practically 10 percent. Only one ministry has been, excuse the pun, savaged, and that one ministry — by gosh, here it is, about fourth down — is Agriculture and Fisheries, at 11.3 percent.

The minister will probably get up and state that it's because of the $28 million spent on the grape.... Nevertheless, these are your figures. It's the only one out of the 21 ministries on the line that went down. It's the only one that had about 700 individuals working for it.... Most of them knew what they were doing. It was not an overloaded ministry. Now you're down to 416 or 420; I may be two or three out.

The other thing that absolutely amazes me is this. Your estimate for 1989-90 was $104.1 million. You spent only $100.8 million. Let me elaborate. That is very prudent management when you don't need the money. When you don't need the money, it's excellent management, and I would be the first to commend the minister. But this ministry needs the money more than any other. We could name a dozen areas where this ministry needed the extra $3.3 million that you left on the table. You left it on the table; they took it away and then reduced the budget by 11.3 percent. Astonishing!

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You're quite correct in saying that we're down 11.3 percent. You have to realize that part of it was the program that you mentioned, the $28 million grape and wine adjustment program. If you take that out, we're down $9,475,000. The feed grain market development program concluded last year was $1.3 million. The government cost of FII was reduced due to the fact that we had signed the international tripartite stabilization fund, which is federally funded along with the province on a different ratio than we had under FII. Therefore we saved some $2,414,000. We drew in federal money instead

[ Page 11284 ]

of it coming from the province. I think that's good budgeting, frankly, if we can draw in the federal government and have them expend some of their dollars in this province rather than it all coming from B.C.

The overall total is $13,189,000. Don't forget, hon. member, that a large part of that was the grape and wine adjustment program, which was only there for one year. After you take those adjustments into consideration, the balance of the ministry's budget is up some $3.1 million, or about 3 percent overall.

MR. BARLEE: You've almost regained the $3.3 million you left on the table last year.

Another thing. Look at the long term. Let's look at this ministry's budget 15 years ago, when it was 1.8 percent. Then it went down to 1.4, then down to 1.2, then down to 1, then down to 0.8, then down to 0.7. Now it hovers around 0.6, one-third of what it was. That shows how important this industry is considered in the inner cabinet. I'm saying it isn't good enough for the industry, because the industry impacts on everybody in the province, not just the farming community. The public is way ahead of the politicians. They realize the value of the agricultural greenbelts. I think the minister realizes the value of the agricultural greenbelts; I do not think the cabinet realizes it. The cabinet is stuck way back in the past. They're 15 years behind the times. You may be up with it; I'm inclined to think you are. But I don't think they are. You should be reversing that trend. It is simply not enough.

It is prudent management, as I stated before, if you don't need the money. We needed the money. I'll tell you where we needed it in a few minutes.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It would be nice if we could keep pushing budgets up and up, but I made the statement not too long ago that in a global provincial budget there is a problem of addressing which ministries have to have the majority of the funding. I tend to believe — I would have to have it checked out — that overall the resource sector funding has suffered, with more money going into things like health care, education, social services, housing and those sectors, which have seen large increases in funding to administer the programs under those ministries. There have been substantial increases in those. I would agree with you, hon. member. I wish I did have more money in my budget, quite frankly. There are a lot of things we could help agriculture with. I would dearly love to have the dollars to do it with, but we will fight harder and stronger next time, let me assure you.

MR. BARLEE: We talk about that $3.3 million and we talk about the environment. We talk about programs needed. One of those programs we needed, as the minister is well aware, is the SIR program — the sterile insect release program. Now that's been delayed another year. It could have used that $3 million, which would have given us a step up on our American competitors, because they don't have it. We have some expertise in this country, and we didn't use it. We didn't take advantage of that little slot in their armour, and we should have. I brought it to the floor of this House last year. It was saved at the last moment by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, I believe; she intervened. We got it on the table, but it's still dragging. What has happened to the SIR program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Again, that's a program that we are working on. It's part of the sustainable environment fund that we're trying to get addressed, and as you say, it will be part and parcel of the environmental sensitivity to the reduced use of chemicals in food production. I am certainly one.... I noticed that you recognized that the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time did react very quickly. Unfortunately we don't have agreement, because when the original presentation, as I understood it, came from the tree-fruit industry, there was no request for funding. The original request that came forward did not seek funding from our ministry; subsequent to that, they did ask for dollars to be contributed. I also have to give credit to the MLAs from the area, who expressed their concerns about getting something in place to implement the program. We're working towards that end, let me assure you.

MR. BARLEE: I'll accept that the sterile insect release program will be in effect next year.

Another place where the $3.3 million that was left on the table — which is astonishing — could have been used is in soil conservation projects. We're losing soil all the time. It astonishes me. The minister knows — he admitted it five minutes ago — that his ministry is short of funds. He is going to work towards increasing the funding for his ministry, yet he left $3.3 million on the table, which is just astonishing to me.

Another thing that really interests me is this: the lack of foresight, the lack of imagination, the lack of initiative — I don't know what it is. Several years ago the "Buy B.C." campaign was effectively discontinued. Here's a government that spends $30 million a year. And what are they spending the $30 million a year on? Some phony news releases that they make look like real news releases, patting themselves on the back. I'm saying that only 10 percent of that, a nice little tithe, should go to the agricultural community to have an effective "Buy B.C." campaign.

You stated in your preamble that people don't know whether they're buying B.C., Washington State, Chilean or Australian goods; nobody knows. Therefore you go to the inner cabinet and say: "Look, you've got $30 million. You take $27 million; I'll take $3 million." And by gosh, you should take $3 million. Now what would you do with that $3 million? I'll tell you what I would do — and you may use this. It may cost me politically; that's okay. Here's what I would do with the $3 million. There are 365 days in the year — 52 weeks. Let's just cut that down to 300 days. That gives me $3 million for 300 days; six days a week,

[ Page 11285 ]

$10,000 a day. You're spending the money anyway, so it isn't extra money. The money is already gone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would suggest that you make your comments through the Chair.

MR. BARLEE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what I would do is this. I would say: "Okay, let's take that $3 million. Let's put it into the agricultural community to promote the purchase of British Columbia goods in season." How do you do it? How would you approach guys like Jimmy Pattison? How would you approach the moguls? How would you approach the large retail outlets like Safeway? Let's look at it very closely. How do they operate? They operate on a share of the market, and 1 percent of the retail grocery market, Mr. Minister, is phenomenal. One percent is many millions of dollars; I'm trying to get the figures on it. Astounding! Mind-boggling! Amazing!

What I would do is this. I would say: "Let's give about 15 percent of that $3 million to the newspapers, about 5 percent to magazines, about 10 percent to radio; and then let's give 75 percent to television, which we know makes an impact on the consumer." And how do you use that in television? Here's what I would do. I would go to the owners of Safeway, Super-Valu, Save-On and Shop Easy, and say: "Do you want to participate in a 'Buy B.C.' program which we're inaugurating? We're going to spend $10,000 a day, six days a week." And they'd say: "Oh no, thank you. We don't want to participate." They're doing very well. They're making a king's ransom off the backs of our farmers.

So who do you go to then? I'll tell you. You go to the small boys who want a share of the market — little outfits like Cooper's, People's Food Market and Stong's — and say, "What we're going to do is this," and you explain in graphic detail.

[4:30]

You get three or four very good, sharp operators who know how PR works, and you take a rolling view — we call it a pan view in TV — of, we'll say, a cattle ranch in the Cariboo with idyllic conditions, showing those nice rolling hills of the Cariboo; a dairy farm in the Fraser Valley with the Fraser River beyond, and the snow-capped Coast Range beyond that; and an apple orchard in the Okanagan, with Osoyoos Lake or Okanagan Lake beyond it. Then you put a cap on that after you've captured the audience — and you can capture the audience through TV. You put a term on that, and you say: "This is what you save when you're buying British Columbia produce."

Jimmy Pattison says he's British Columbia's grocer. He is not British Columbia's grocer, quite obviously. But the little guys may be. What are they looking for? They don't really care about the farmer, any more than the big boys care about the farmer. What they do care about is market share. You don't have to convince more than one consumer out of a hundred. If you can ship 1 percent of that retail trade, then Super-Valu, Shop Easy and Safeway come back, and you don't have to carry your hat in your hand anymore. Then they're on your ground, because 1 percent is millions and millions and millions of dollars.

If you can convince 2 percent of the buying public to buy B.C. produce through that program, you've got the market. Then you can address these issues. Then you can say: "Yes, the farmers must have 16 cents a pound for their apples." Then they're willing to talk turkey. This is how the entrepreneurial mind works. I know; I've been with these guys for 30 years. That's precisely how they work, and I think it's extremely important.

What are you doing? I know you're making small moves in that area, but you really haven't put the package together. Are you going to ask for 10 percent of that budget? Certainly that leaves them 90 percent to play with politically. Certainly the agricultural industry needs it more than any other sector in the budget. There's not much doubt about it. I think the minister and I both concur that the agricultural community needs it. Now that could cost me votes, because if you do it, it will work and you may get rid of me — and that's worth it. So maybe you should try it.

HON. MR- SAVAGE: I suppose there was a lot of discussion relative to what type of promotion we'd do on how to get the message to the consuming public. We have discussed that at ministry level on many occasions and continue to work on it. I did state in my preamble that we would be doing a "quality grown with care" program, and we plan to inform the consuming public how important it is for the consumer to support British Columbia products.

As I stated in my opening remarks, I think we've got something to be very proud of. We are very conscientious producers; we are a conscientious industry. We have to get that message out and encourage those buying people — our consumers — to support us. I think they will. Once we get the program in place, I believe we will have a response that will improve our opportunities to supply a good share of that marketplace.

I also understand that it takes a lot of dollars. As you suggested, there are ways of doing it. I tell you there's obviously ways of getting money, but there has got to be an effective program put in place that really gives a message to the consumers that they should buy B.C. products.

I think it boils down to a number of things that we have done in government, things our ministry has looked into: reduced use of chemicals, the environmental sensitivity that has to be put in place in food production — which we are doing — integrated pest management and biological controls. That's a good message that will help to sell what we produce in British Columbia. We plan to go forward with that program, and hopefully, for the next few years we can increase the funding and do a great job of getting the message out to our consumers.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, the message can be got out, but it can't be given to the people of British

[ Page 11286 ]

Columbia by people who don't know. It has to be done by a marketer. It has to be done by an individual or a firm who knows the marketplace. It can be done, but it can't be done on a very small, slim budget. It has to be done with a million-dollar budget, because it will return the cost manifold.

Mr. Minister, it will result in — and I've alluded to his before — an increase in our quality of life. Does that count? Does the public really care about our quality of life? They do. I'll give you a couple of classic examples. On the mainland of the United States, they took a survey about a month and a half ago, and they polled thousands and thousands of people. I think it was USA Today that did the survey. They asked: "Which state of the union on the continental United States do you find the most attractive? Where would you like to live?" Much to everyone's astonishment — except the people in Oregon — the overwhelming response was: "We would like to live in Oregon."

Let's examine that. Why did they want to live in Oregon? I'll tell you why. They wanted to live in Oregon because Oregon has a land use act that is quite advanced. Not only that, this land use act has really cut Oregon into certain areas. There are certain areas that are in farmland, and they stay. The real estate developers — which is a term that should never be allowed, because developers they are not — challenged it five times in the courts in Oregon. It went to public referendum. In the five times they challenged it, it was overwhelmingly defeated by the public. The public said: "No, we like Oregon the way it is."

This is what I visualize for British Columbia. Actually, I think it's what the minister visualizes for British Columbia. I don't want to see our food sources come from the greenhouses of British Columbia. I'm pleased they are doing well, but that isn't the whole equation. There are other factors that fit into that equation.

When I stand in the Okanagan Valley and go up Anarchist Mountain to look down on Osoyoos and see the greenbelts on the west side of that lake as far as I can see — and the minister knows that view as well as I do — I think it's worth saving. It's a quality of life that, if it goes, we will never get back. If we pave those orchards, we will never get it back. It is quite unique. The same applies to that rolling country of the Cariboo; we have to be extremely careful.

What we are really doing is preserving this land for our children, our children's children and generations to come. We must have a much longer perspective than we have. We have not shown a great deal of foresight. Unfortunately, the minister is fighting a losing battle with some of those guys in the inner cabinet. They don't understand it. If we ever got together over casual conversation, you would concur with that. They don't have the feet for the land they did have.

Your party was a populist party; it came from the land. You can see what has happened in the last ten years. This party has drifted away. Most of the members on your side of the House don't care. If they did care, the budget to agriculture wouldn't have been cut. If they did care, you wouldn't have 400 people in the ministry; you'd have 500. If they did care, you wouldn't have 0.6 percent of the budget; you'd have 1 percent of the budget at least. There is so much work that needs to be done. The farmer hasn't got the so-called level playing-field.

I looked at some of the interest rates the other day. The U.S. has lowered their interest rate to just over 8 percent. What does that mean to the average farmer who is carrying a $200,000 debt load? In the United States, what's he paying? He's paying $16,000 a year. We'll transfer that to Canada. What about the farmer in Canada? He gets it at 1.5 percent above prime — we'll say prime. It's probably 16 percent on $200,000. He's paying $32,000 a year compared to $16,000, $17,000 or $18,000. That is not a level playing-field. We cannot compete on a level playing-field. Within this ministry we must have much more money available to the farmers who need it, if we are to preserve that very important part of the agricultural greenbelts.

I talked about Oregon. Well, let me talk about Hawaii. I alluded to this very briefly last year, but I think it's worth going over again, canvassing again, revisiting. Hawaii has to protect its agricultural lands, because there isn't a great deal of land there. So what did they do in 1961?

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I receive letters from various people from outside my constituency. I'm winning that battle in my constituency. "This is incredible legislation. It's never been done before. It's not fair." There's always legislation for land. Legislation covers land in any civilized country in the world.

What did they do in Hawaii? They established Bill 187, I think, in 1961, almost 30 years ago — 12 years before we established the agricultural land reserve. What did they do with that bill? They were so farsighted; they realized they didn't want Hawaii to change. When I'm talking about change, I'm talking about the little towns of British Columbia. The change has not been good. The developers don't give a particular darn; they really don't care.

I look at the old town of Kelowna. We owned much of that land in Kelowna when I was a kid. The Barlee stretch was all ours. My old uncle — God bless him — was an old-line conservative, a very nice guy. But he was a conservative. I forgive him, because he was a nice guy. He owned hundreds of acres, and they sold it. Who did they sell it to? Well, the names are familiar: the Bennett boys, etc. He sold hundreds of acres for about $24,000.

What happened to that prime agricultural land? Well, they turned it into Orchard Park. The old Barlee stretch was made into Orchard Park; that's a misnomer. I looked at the park, and I thought it was a green strip. I thought it was a greenbelt. The developers called it a park. They weren't thinking about greenbelts; they didn't give ten feet to a green strip.

[ Page 11287 ]

I went after them in Kelowna. I went to school with some of those guys. I said: "What's the matter with you, Dudley? Why didn't you put some green strips in there? You called it a park." He said: "Oh, Bill, we were going to." I said: "Like hell you were going to. You had no intention. You had to maximize the dollar to the last penny at the expense of the city of Kelowna." Kelowna was a remarkably beautiful city in the 1940s and 1950s. Take a look at it today. Here's what they've got: a higher crime rate — one of the highest in British Columbia; a traffic jam from eight in the morning till eight at night; the quality of life is virtually gone; there are virtually no parks. That's what the developers have done.

In Hawaii they looked ahead; they saw what happened to some of these small towns. You can pick out dozens of small towns in British Columbia where that has happened. The minister knows them as well as I do. They say you can't stop progress. What is progress? I say progress is looking through one end of that telescope and seeing what's going to come down the line in ten or 15 years. I say that we're not taking a good look at it. I think the minister is looking at it, but I don't think he is listened to in the inner cabinet. You should go to them and say: "Look, it has worked elsewhere."

It has worked in Hawaii. How has it worked in Hawaii? What did they do in that land bill? By the way, they consider that bill to be the second most important piece of legislation in Hawaiian history, after their constitution. What did they do? Well, they made part of the islands of Hawaii.... There are a number of them. I haven't gone there, because I prefer my vacations in British Columbia. There a number of islands in Hawaii, and they made part of them into an agricultural land reserve — period. The boundaries they drew were almost permanent. Then what did they do? Well, they made some of them into parks and recreation areas, and the boundaries they drew were virtually permanent. Then they made some of them into rural areas; the boundaries they drew were almost permanent again. Finally, they made some of them into urban areas

[4:45]

Then what happened? Well, you know what happened. The developers, those guys who call their housing developments parks — what a lot of nerve they've got — began to move in and lobby the government. Did it work? Well, I'm pleased to report that it didn't. That land use plan, which is virtually an ALR, is intact after almost 30 years.

I'm saying that it's worth it. I'm saying that it's a special calling. I'm saying that the farmer of British Columbia — and you can almost get passionate about it — is really safeguarding our future. When he safeguards that greenbelt, he's doing the job he should be doing. But he hasn't been getting help. You say: "Well, they should be able to compete in the international marketplace." I'm saying they can't. I'm saying that dollar for dollar the farmer of British Columbia cannot compete; I'm saying that dollar for dollar maybe he shouldn't compete. I'm saying that there are other values, and he's holding them.

I'm saying that the ALR, when it was originally established, was a social contract between our government of the day, which lasted about 34 months, and your government since that time — 15 years. What was understood in that social contract? I'll tell you. The implications were very obvious: if the farmer would keep those lands intact, if he would keep those greenbelts intact for everyone in British Columbia, then they would see that at least he'd get his cost of production back. I'll tell you what happened. The farmer's share was steadily eroded.

I think you've tried to reverse the trend, but I don't think you've been successful. I think you would probably admit in moments of reflection that you have not achieved what you wanted to achieve when you first became minister in 1986. I'm saying that it's worth the long fight. And if you do achieve it, I'll tell you what the reward is. Politics is only politics, and if you achieve it, then that vast movement away from your party in the hinterland of British Columbia....

I've talked to long-time Social Crediters whose judgment I trust, and they are not voting for you anymore. But if you are able to reverse the trend — and there is still time — then they will vote for you. The result will be that guys like me, who are in old Social Credit ridings.... My riding had never elected an NDP in 50 years, since 1940. It's a long-time Social Credit riding. Usually 8,700 votes go Social Credit, and 50 to 100 go to us. I have to depend upon followers of yours to be elected. The reason I'm getting this vote is that they think you're drifting away from the old values of the Social Credit Party. I think you are. I don't think you've arrested that trend; if you do, it will pay dividends. I'll be gone, but this is not the end, because it will be worth it for me. It really will be worth it for me, even if I go down to defeat — which I undoubtedly would. All those old farmers back in my riding will say: "My heavens, the government has come back home, and we're going to vote for them again." If that happened, I wouldn't be disappointed; there are many other things to do.

I'm saying that you have to go after that inner cabinet. Be as eloquent as you can — and sometimes you are eloquent. And I think you believe in it. Essentially I think you believe in it, but I do not think you've been successful. Those hardheads don't care about British Columbia; that front bench of your party does not care. I'm not the only one who thinks that. There are literally thousands in my own riding who feel exactly the same way. I kid the cattlemen. I say: "You guys are so right-wing, you even dismount on the right-hand side." These guys are really right-wing. I know; my people were cattlemen. God, they were right-wing; they were astonishing. They were the last of the conservatives. But they would have had second thoughts. I know this. I used to get 5 percent of the cattlemen's vote. My gosh, it's just astounding; I'd probably get 30 percent now. So the drift is away. Why is the drift away? Partly, Mr. Minister, because of you. You have been partially successful — but only partially successful. I'd like to

[ Page 11288 ]

hear your comments on where you see the direction of agriculture going.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That was a pretty long exposé on where we may have some problems. I would not agree entirely with all the comments. I certainly have concerns about where agriculture is going and how much funding is involved in it. I certainly have a great deal of faith in our agricultural community. And I fully realize that their future is going to be largely dependent on some government action. There is no doubt about that.

When we look at what the opportunities are, how we interact with the agricultural industry will remain a top priority. I know discussions go on very regularly between councils, regional districts, unorganized territories and all sectors relative to future plans for the ALR as they relate to community growth, etc. I strongly believe that we all recognize, including my colleagues in cabinet, the importance of the agricultural land base, so that the industry can thrive and grow. But we also have to give recognition that communities....

We all continue to have children. We have people who come into this province looking for places to live and hopefully residing in British Columbia. I know I enjoy the benefit of my children and my grandchild living in this province. I think that's important. I don't think I should shut them out. But I do think that we should properly plan for that type of growth. I respect that the agricultural land reserve or the base lands should be kept for food production in this province. Maybe to some extent I disagree with you and in other things I do agree. There is a way to respect both trains of thought.

I believe it's extremely important that we give every opportunity to any individual in British Columbia wishing to continue to live here and have families. It may take some tough planning, some tough decisions — and some of those may well be at the Agricultural Land Commission; nonetheless, I appreciate some of the comments the hon. member made, Mr. Chairman. I'll do everything I can, as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for this province, to raise the spectre of this great industry, and I know I could use a lot more funding to do so.

MR. BARLEE: I don't think you meant "raise the spectre"; perhaps you meant "raise the profile."

The minister therefore should be aware of what is happening in other ministries in respect to the Agriculture ministry. For instance, I have a report in front of me by Deloitte Touche. Deloitte Touche is dealing with the Ministry of International Business and Immigration at the same time the Lusztig commission report was coming down the pike. Deloitte Touche is dealing with a ministry that says that we should be able to improve British Columbia products and so on and so forth. This astounding report, which is only part 1, and probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, was almost duplicating what the Lusztig commission was trying to do.

What was the Ministry of International Business and Immigration doing interfering, essentially, with the ground that the Agriculture ministry should have been concerned with? I find it quite astounding that that minister saw fit to interfere in an area which he had no knowledge about at all. I imagine Deloitte Touche had not much knowledge either.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe that the study they were undertaking — I am referring to the Ministry of International Business — was of marketing. I don't think there was necessarily any interference per se in the agricultural study that was done by the Lusztig commission. I respect your comment that there were two ministries involved in doing studies, but I think the International Business ministry was dealing largely with the marketing side.

MR. BARLEE: I think it was a transgression on your ministry, and I don't think it was called for. Nor do I think it was appropriate for that minister.

The minister states that he has the backing of most of the ministers in the inner cabinet. When I look at Hansard from last year and the former Attorney-General's comments when I was defending the ALR.... They were: where were we going to get the money? That minister, being a member of the inner cabinet, was quite aware that there was supposedly a surplus of several hundred million dollars.

I do not think that the ministry or the minister has the backing of the inner cabinet. I'm saying that if you are to bring agriculture — and I mean agriculture in the holistic sense, agriculture that benefits all of us — out of the Dark Ages, then you have to be able to make a mark on that inner cabinet. I don't think that is being done, quite frankly, and I would like to know what the minister is shooting for next year in the budget, presuming there's not an election before next year.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would hope I'm not 'shooting" for anything. I would maybe target — no pun intended — a specific level. I would hope to have a substantial increase. Obviously when you're looking for increases in your budget, you have to identify types of programs, etc. But I think we need to take a good look at the levels of help that may be required for the agricultural sector in the next year and try to address them from a budgetary point of view.

As I stated earlier, we will do everything we can to increase our budget.

MR. BARLEE: The trouble is, Mr. Minister, I heard the very words last year. If you will check Hansard, you will see that that's what you told me last year, and it really did not come to pass. I'm saying that it requires, again, that broader view, and if you can carry that message to your cabinet, your whole party will benefit. I'm not so much a politician that I don't mind if it benefits. Perhaps not too much, but it should benefit a little bit.

[ Page 11289 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to ask the minister what he's done with respect to petitioning the federal government to perhaps reinvigorate the experimental station in Prince George. I ask this because the farmers in the area, in the interior and Highway 16 east and west and north, have felt a loss with this, and with the advent of the University of Northern British Columbia there may be renewed opportunity to enhance this facility. I just wonder what position you've taken on it and what steps you've taken with respect to raising the importance of this with the federal ministry.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We would like to see the Prince George research site maintained. In fact, we continue to have ministry staff on site. We would like to have the federal government committed to maintaining the operation of the Prince George research station.

As you know, there's a terrific undertaking.... Probably the federal government, due to the size of their deficit and debt load, would like to shut down a lot of things that are costing them money. But I think there's nothing more important for agriculture than research.

I'm quite appalled by the fact that they wish to shut it down and - for lack of a better word -offload a lot of their programs. They would like to see somebody else take them over and shirk their own responsibilities. But I strongly believe that we shall continue the pressure to have the Prince George research station remain ongoing, if possible. The federal government runs it, but my staff and I, as the minister, are obviously cognizant of the fact that it provides an important function for the agricultural community in that area. We will continue to press the hon. Minister of Agriculture to keep it open.

[5:00]

MR. ZIRNHELT: The second item has to do with the removal of the district agriculturalist from the Quesnel office. You've not reduced the number; you've moved him, in effect, from Quesnel to Williams Lake under the guise of rationalizing services. I would like to urge you to reconsider and evaluate that with the farmers and ranchers in the area, because what I am hearing from them is that they're not served as well when you have two people in a central location. Your argument was that people would be served better simply because there are two experts in one area and because they can travel anyway. But knowing the distances in the area and having discussed this with people in the area, it's my observation that they don't feel they are as well served.

I realize that personnel decisions aren't as easy to undo, but I want to know that you're open to evaluating the success of this from the clients' point of view. Cost was apparently not a factor. You upgraded the secretary's position to some minor technician's position. But in the view of people there, that doesn't replace the service you had there in the form of a professionally trained agrologist. I have probably half a dozen letters from people in the Quesnel district, which I'm sure you've received.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm afraid I don't have the answer in front of me at the moment as to whether we will put another person in there. I am just discussing it with my staff here. I will certainly take it back and, if you like, provide an answer to you subsequent to this discussion. I will certainly look into it — I promise you that — and see if we can replace the district agriculturalist at Quesnel.

MR. ZIRNHELT: As I understand the position your ministry has taken, the position was moved to Williams Lake — so there are two there instead of one. My point is that it may well be that people will be better served after a time, after they get used to it. But I think the general feeling is that when you centralize some of these services, the positions end up being consumed more with over-the-counter and what you might consider bureaucratic and paper functions rather than work in the field. So when you reply or if you consider this, be open to re-establishing that position, because I think if you look from the clients' point of view, there is considerable merit in having the position retained there.

The third item has to do with the coordination of programs between your ministry, the Ministry of Crown Lands and the Ministry of Forests. I'm alluding here to woodlot programs, which is a Ministry of Forests program, not yours. But we can't escape from the fact that we have to have an integrated approach if we are to allow the farming community to thrive. It has been my observation that if you combine a number of agricultural products with wood products, you have a balance that works well in the interior and to some extent in the north.

Some of the observations by the Gillespie commission on agricultural leases were that it was the economics of farming and ranching in the interior that led people to want to exploit agricultural leases for income. During the estimates of both the Ministry of Crown Lands and the Ministry of Forests I brought up this point, because I think that integration is going to have to happen at the highest level. What your department needs to do is coordinate the services so that you can look at truly integrated resource management from the point of view of the rancher trying to expand the production of wood on farmland, because that particular product may be the highest and best use. You need to have Agriculture, Crown Lands and Forests working together on that.

I wonder if you have any perceptions coming out of your evaluation of the Gillespie report as to where you see the woodlot program going. I raise this because there is considerable interest in a farm woodlot program, as opposed to a general program available to anyone and everyone, regardless of whether they're running a farming operation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Generally we've supported the Gillespie report, but we're dropping down to the 100-acre level instead of the 200. If you look at

[ Page 11290 ]

integrated resource management, we would support an integrated resource management view. It not only reflects the necessity for grazing woodlots, as you say; there are a lot of areas where if you took the wood from the particular lot, you could probably substantially improve the AUM or the grazing on those particular areas. So it's important, and I would agree with you that we do everything we can to have equal opportunity of resource management. It has to be integrated among most of the users, and that is extremely important. You raised a very valid issue, and our ministry is working on that, let me assure you, in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests. It also obviously involves Crown Lands.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It is heartening to know that you're looking in that direction, because when it comes to making effective extension services, then the agrologists out in the field are going to have to be cognizant of the timber management possibilities as well. But there is probably a need for agreements between the ministries, and, as I said, the lead role here is probably with the Ministry of Crown Lands anyway.

The next item has to do with flood relief. It has been my observation that a lot of people who suffered flood damage to their crops were not carrying crop insurance. They weren't carrying crop insurance in large part because they've always managed without it, but also because the cost of crop insurance is too high. I would think that in order to entice people into the program, the rates have to be lower. Eventually, if it's to become self-sustaining, you'll need a larger subscription to it. I'd like to know if you would agree with that, or what you are doing to enhance the number of people who are on crop insurance.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We would obviously encourage the farming community to be involved in crop insurance and to take the program. Of course, if we just have the farmers in risky areas — not Riske Creek — continuing to take it, and they have the largest amount of the claims, then obviously the premium rate will continue to climb. If we have the involvement of all ranchers — if we're talking about, for instance, alfalfa fields, and we have the participation of all the ranchers in a defined area — then it would reduce the impact of the claims of those in the risky area. So we've got to try to convince the ranching community that they should all be involved in insurance. It's difficult, and I can have the greatest respect and sympathy for those who have lost their crop. We've got to try and address the problem of losses, obviously.

When there is a program made available, the people who know it's there should make every effort to be part and parcel of that program. I don't think people should just omit the fact that it's there and then when a disaster strikes, all of a sudden look for help. Obviously we'll try to help, but you also have to recognize that it's prudent that the people who are involved get involved in the program.

It doesn't matter where it is. I've had the same problem, quite frankly, come to me relative to the huge amount of loss in the vegetable area this year in the Fraser Valley. We've had horrendous losses, and some of the farmers are saying it's a massive loss to them. I know very well it is. In fact, it has impacted on our own farm on the same basis. But crop insurance is there to take out, and I'm encouraging farmers to use it. The program we're working toward is a tripartite one. It will be shared by three levels, 25 percent for each of the two governments and 50 percent by the farmers. So between the two levels of government, the governments are taking half the risk.

MR. ZIRNHELT: My point had to do with perhaps dropping the rate. I understand the rate for forage crops is in the neighbourhood of 10 percent. That's a pretty hefty premium to pay, and most people feel that the risk has not been so great. Why not reduce the rate to enhance more people getting on the program? If there are more people on the program, the rate will be lower, or at least that's what your people are saying. I see it as a bit of a marketing problem for your program.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can tell you, hon. member, that we are trying, through our different ministry field offices, to encourage our staff to go out and sell the merits of a commitment to crop insurance. The 10 percent level you refer to obviously reflects the risk from the previous claims that have been in place, because it does move according to claims. Each individual, in some crops, is assessed on individual loss. In some areas, when you get in the forage section, it may at some point be strictly on the individual who takes out the insurance, not the industry average. But for those who first come in, they take the five-year average, as I understand it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: On range fencing, you have changed the guidelines for the ALDA program. I don't think you expanded it to include the cost of fencing on Crown range. Was that considered? Will it be considered? What is your position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I've just asked my staff. As far as I understand, it was considered, but at this stage it has been rejected. If you would like to talk to me afterwards as to what your particular concern was — how much fencing and in what areas — and if you have some ideas, I would be more than willing to take a took at your suggestions. But the original presentation was rejected.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It's been a longstanding wish on the part of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to extend it. I will pursue it.

The other matter here may be for a different minister, but I'm not sure. Your ministry would have to be involved regardless. It's the updating of the list for exemptions under the Social Service Tax Act. There's a list of exemptions from the tax for agricultural input items — things purchased by agricultural

[ Page 11291 ]

producers. Has your ministry been involved in trying to update that list? For example, you have binders and harness on there, but you don't have some of the other more modern pieces of equipment that farmers need.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have, almost yearly, looked at updating the tax exemptions. We work through different farm organizations who make presentations in our office as to some of the items they think should be exempted from that tax. As you know, there is quite a substantial list that has been agreed to by the Ministry of Finance, but there are continued inputs from the agricultural sector for more exemptions. It's done pretty well yearly and sometimes twice a year, to make submissions to the minister as to the number of things they would like to see exempted from taxation. Basic equipment, for example in the greenhouse sector, which is a growing sector.... There are a lot of things they are putting in a basic greenhouse that they would like to see exempted from tax. It does change periodically. There are different items that do come forward from the different commodity groups.

[5:15]

MR. ZIRNHELT: So we can conclude, seeing there is a fairly frequent revision, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) just doesn't agree with the commodity groups and therefore doesn't change the list.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It doesn't necessarily mean he disagrees with the commodity groups. The particular item that is being asked to be exempted from tax is reviewed as to its use, source, etc., to see whether it should be exempt. It's not a case of the commodity group versus the minister. It's really a case of a particular item that is being asked to be exempted.

MR. ZIRNHELT: My last question deals with the farm income increases which you alluded to in your opening remarks. Can you elaborate on which sectors you know the increases to be in? Was it broken down by sectors? Other information, including Gillespie, shows that farm incomes will probably decrease this year.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The largest increases will be in the livestock sector. If you want to go into each commodity in the livestock sector, whether it's beef, hogs, turkeys, chickens or whatever, we can follow that through. A lot of things depend on marketing trends or marketing changes. In some things even the best of forecasts will be wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be saying this, but Agriculture Canada used to put out a projection; we often differed with it in our own operation and did quite nicely. Even the best of projections can be proven wrong. Even though somebody says that prices will be down for one and up for another, quite often the reverse happens. Even Gillespie in his report may have suggested that cattle prices or whatever would be down, but they still remain very strong.

I agree with you that he did project a decrease in prices, but they're still hanging there and may well — who knows? — go up, because the overall cattle numbers in North America are down a bit.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Can you provide us with the backup material for your suggested increase? What's it based on, and can we see it? It surprises me. It's information I haven't had. Is it available?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I will have my staff provide that information through to your office.

MR. ZIRNHELT: That concludes my questioning for the minister.

MR. JONES: I'd like to revisit a topic that the minister and I discussed last year, and that was the preservation of farmland — in particular the tremendous impact of order-in-council 1141, approved under the minister's name in June 1988, on the potential for preservation of quality farmland in this province.

A good deal has happened since that discussion last year, and I would like to get the minister's current position and the government position on this particular topic, that has been of considerable public interest in the last year.

The chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission has indicated serious reservations about this order-in-council. This is courageous on the part of that chairman, who I'm sure would like to retain his position and not offend the government. It's only on rare occasions when there is a serious threat to prime farmland that the chairman would raise his serious objections.

He indicates that in Delta, for example, the flood of golf course applications threatens the future viability of farmland in Delta. He also indicates that the government should not have permitted order-in-council 1141 in the absence of municipal guidelines, and that the government, as some municipalities have, should introduce guidelines that would outline that the most suitable areas in terms of topography and soil should not be used for golf courses. The guidelines should also indicate the inability of golf courses to break up farmland, and indicate that golf courses be permitted in non-agricultural areas and in agricultural areas of very poor soil, but not interrupt the coherent nature of farmland.

It was last year also that the B.C. Institute of Agrologists took a very strong position with respect to order-in-council 1141. They were upset that there was no public debate before that order-in-council. That was a major piece of legislation, in fact, that happened in order-in-council, and there was certainly no news release upon its issuance. The 700 members of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists unanimously approved a motion asking the government to rescind order-in-council 1141, which permitted golf courses within the agricultural land reserve and the attendant

[ Page 11292 ]

buildings and facilities that go along with those golf courses.

It's been a little over two years since that order-in-council was approved. In that time the Agricultural Land Commission has received something like 67 applications for golf course use on agricultural land. That is more than the Agricultural Land Commission has received since its inception some 15 or 16 years ago.

The minister, as I recall, last year put up a pretty strong defence of this order-in-council, using the spurious argument that they could easily revert back to agricultural land should it be needed. Very clearly the economic argument and the agricultural argument do not support that position, and I don't think anybody accepts that position now.

The minister signed that order-in-council, and yet I have read subsequently — and thus my question to the minister today — that the minister's position is something different than what we discussed last year during debate on the minister's estimates. The minister is reported in February in the Times-Colonist as saying that he doesn't agree with the key policy change on farmland that he implemented two years ago, which may have dramatically increased the value of farm property. "If it's good farmland, in my opinion it should not be a golf course." If the Times-Colonist article can be believed, very clearly the minister's position is somewhat different than what he indicated in this Legislature a little over a year ago.

I ask the minister whether that report is correct. Is the minister's position now that we should not have golf courses on quality farmland in this province?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Last year during my estimates, as you stated, you and I debated order-in-council 1141, and I did say that I believed that if necessary, if there was a requirement to revert a golf course — maybe where the building is there would be some difficulty, but generally speaking — most of the soil would be there. It's a case, mostly, of replacing the soil in the dug-outs or sand-traps, etc. I still strongly believe that if it was absolutely necessary, that could be done.

In some areas of Canada that's not so easy, but with the type of soils we have in a good part of the lower mainland — and I think that's where the biggest pressure, if I can use the word, would be on the use of some of that land for golf course purposes — it could be reverted.

I do strongly state — and I did state, as you said — that I believe good farmland should be kept for food production. If there is a need for golf courses, we should at least look at marginal land. If I'm not mistaken, that's the position of the Agricultural Land Commission. They have looked at sites throughout the different proposals that have come in and have advised — as is within their authority — a lot of municipalities or regional districts of areas they thought may well be suitable for a proposed golf course. I strongly believe that good quality farmland with good soils should be kept for agricultural purposes.

MR. JONES: I don't want to spend valuable time in the Legislature on the silly debate the minister raises with respect to conversion of golf courses back to agricultural land. The minister knows better than anybody in this Legislature the dollar value of a golf course compared to an acre of farmland. Nobody is going to get into reconversion into farmland.

The minister, as a farmer with a long history of farming in his family, also knows that the kind of chemicals used by golf courses would preclude future food production on a reconversion to farmland. That is a spurious argument that's rejected by virtually everybody who has thought about this issue. I don't want to get into that issue.

The minister talks about the position of the Agricultural Land Commission, and he seems to support that position. The problem is that order-in-council 1141 takes the responsibility away from those experts and the people who know the soil, the topography and the conditions under which a golf course should be permitted. That puts it in other hands that are often not quite so sensitive to the need for farmland preservation. The problem is with you as minister, with your government and with the order-in-council your government approved.

If, as you say now — and I very much appreciate that position — golf courses should not be permitted on prime agricultural land, then why do we still have that order-in-council? Why, after the chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission has indicated he would like to see it otherwise; why, when the B.C. Institute of Agrologists have indicated that they would like to see it otherwise, do we still have that order-in-council on the books?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I will not comment on future policy, whether the order-in-council is changed, but I think it fair to say that you've heard me express my concerns. I have done so. The Agricultural Land Commission itself, in providing guidelines for municipalities or regional districts, etc., as I understand it.... Perhaps the Land Commission could give you more detail. The guidelines are generally provided by the Land Commission in the issue of order 1141, and those guidelines are administered through to the different municipalities in the way of comments to either the administrators or the elected officials of those municipalities or districts as to their recommendations on a particular proposal. I think they take into account the land capabilities, etc.

[5:30]

In the case of Delta, if I can use that one, I don't think there has yet been one golf course approved under 1141. Several, as you say, have made application - fair enough - but I'm not aware of any having received final approval. I think there's still consideration being given to environmental concerns, etc., for example around the Boundary Bay area. All those things are part and parcel of the consideration before any final approval will be given.

[ Page 11293 ]

I think we also have to recognize, as you stated, that there is some concern about the impact on.... The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen made the statement that there will be some impacts relative to other farm use, etc. All those things have to be considered.

I think it's important to say that we understand that there may well be a requirement for more golf courses. I guess there's probably a requirement for a lot more of a lot of things. Realistically, opportunities are going to present themselves to be on land that is not the best of land by quite a shot. Those should be the ones considered; marginal land at best is all that should be considered for golf courses.

MR. JONES: In response to the minister's comments with respect to the two golf course applications in Delta, the minister in this chamber last year argued very strongly in favour of those two applications, talking about the salinity of the soil and all those kinds of things. He's not quite prepared to wholly leave it up to the municipalities to determine. Quite rightly the Agricultural Land Commission makes comments to individual applications in municipalities, but municipalities themselves are drawing up guidelines. Some municipalities are doing a superb job and other municipalities are not doing quite such a superb job.

I don't want to talk about future policy necessarily. I want to talk about what has happened in the last six, eight, ten months. It was on February 1, 1990, that the minister argued with his own order-in-council. It was sometime prior to that that the chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission made his comments. It was sometime before that that the B.C. Institute of Agrologists passed their unanimous motion to rescind 1141. So I'm not talking about future policy; I want to know what has happened in the last six, eight, ten months. Why is the minister dragging his feet? Why, when he disagrees with his own order-in-council, hasn't he done anything about it? It's not future policy; why haven't you done anything about that order-in-council?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this debate very briefly. I have a few questions I'd like to put to the minister.

First of all, I want to commend the ministry for the job done over the last few years and particularly this last year. You know — and it was noted by the minister earlier — that British Columbia is probably the only province in Canada that will have an increase this year in farm income on a total farm-income structure.

I don't think that is really a result of higher prices, because generally prices to the farmer at the farm gate are not increasing; they're either constant or dropping. I believe that much of this increase is due to the hard work and the effective work that has been done by the ministry over the last couple of years in advising farmers as to how they can obtain better and greater yields from the various crops.

I just want to touch on a couple of them. The forage crop development programs that are being offered, and the short courses along with those, have benefited farmers greatly over the past few years, particularly farmers in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland. We now see not just three cuts of hay or grass crops but five or six cuts from the various fields, which is basically a doubling of crop yield from the same fields in ten or 15 years. The government doesn't always have to throw a lot of money at it, as has been suggested by the other side; it's really to work with the farmer for more effective and efficient programming.

The same thing has applied in the fruit industry. We have about a whole week each year in the month of March in the lower mainland when various short courses are held: the dairy short course and the small fruit growers' short courses. They're all very well attended. They're not only attended by the farmers, but the equipment dealers have their displays as well. I think it's an excellent joint effort put forth by the ministry to work together with the industry and those who supply the industry with various equipment needs and new technology in various types of farming.

The first question I'd like to put to the minister is.... There have been a fair number of suggestions by various components within the industry that we should have greater access to a good development and research facility for new products. Perhaps the minister may wish to comment on whether any progress is being made on that at this point in time.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not so sure what particular field of new product you're talking about. Research is ongoing, hon. colleague. Obviously we take a look at market trends. The ministry, through its professional staff, looks at market trends and opportunities. I guess the dairy industry is a good example — the one you're involved in, hon. member — of where we have developed a lot of new product. Dairyland Foods in particular has looked at innovative types of product that could be put on the market, and in fact we have sought out new market share for them. It can apply to all sectors.

The value-adding capabilities of agriculture and agricultural products are, to quite an extent, unlimited for a substantial amount of time. We have to work with the industry to develop a number of those value-added products and take the opportunity as British Columbians and as producers in British Columbia, through our different retail arms, to facilitate the development of products that we can put on the market not only here in Canada but throughout the world. We are working towards that end through our research facilities and through working with a number of the processing companies to try and help them. There is an undertaking to try and better develop an opportunity for our farmers and for our processors to gain a share of the marketplace.

MR. DE JONG: I thank the minister for that answer. The agricultural industry is perhaps one part

[ Page 11294 ]

of society mostly concerned about free trade and the effects it may have on farming. I know that in the European market contract — or whatever they want to call it — there is a general agreement among the countries that are participating that when a crop or an ongoing product is being produced within a country, unless 85 percent of that product or produce has been sold, they would not allow the imports of a similar product from other countries. I'm just wondering whether the minister has had any discussions with our federal colleagues on that matter.

The problem of the GST. The agricultural community is very unclear as to how they will be impacted by the GST in terms of equipment as well as the sale of produce within our country and outside our country. The minister may wish to comment on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: First, to the comment on the European Common Market general guidelines of being 85 percent self-sufficient before allowing any importation, that's part of the trade barriers that the United States is trying to break down in order to gain greater access to the market in the European countries. I think it's important to understand that subsidy levels are fairly high on a number of commodities in Europe, and that's the basic argument we have. We could ship food to those countries a lot cheaper than the protected marketplace over there. I think it's also extremely important that if we are given the opportunity to participate in some of those markets, it will enhance our ability as a country to expand production to provide for those new market shares. We constantly have to be on top of that.

Of course, the reverse could be said to be true, where European countries are continually trying to access Canadian or American markets. So there's the ongoing battle relative to non-tariff barriers. And tariffs are put in place that may well protect but are quite often counter to the free market system that would allow the sustaining of the people who are best capable of producing the product and getting it to the marketplace at the cheapest price.

I didn't quite get the second part of the hon. member's question. Was it relating to subsidies, hon. member?

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the question, and I hope it will be my last question to the minister. It has to do with order-in-council 1141. Clearly the minister participated in talks leading up to that order-in-council. He must have known the flood of applications that would appear before the commission as a result of that order-in-council. He must have known what would happen to the price of farmland as a result of that order-in-council. He must have known the disruption that the order-in-council would cause to the agricultural community. He must have known the kind of financial windfall that was available to speculators not interested in preservation of farmland.

And now, after being criticized by the chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission, the Delta Farmers' Institute, municipalities such as Langley, the B.C. Golf Association, the Southlands community committee and the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, has the minister changed his position? But that was some time back. The minister is on the record, as of six or seven months ago, as being opposed to his own order-in-council. He doesn't want to see golf courses now on prime agricultural land. I asked the minister what he has done to express his opposition to that order-in-council and to see that farmland is properly preserved and isn't bulldozed under in order to provide golf courses on prime agricultural land. What has he done?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I have had discussions with the Agricultural Land Commission to see if we could not better define areas or types of soil that might be more suitable for use as a golf course. They're still working on that. I'm counting on some of the experts in the field to give me some advice as to how we deal with it. That's the process we're going through. The commission has agreed that there needs to be a look at whether there's a better way of defining acceptable areas to put a golf course on. If that's any help to you, that's one process that's underway.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister could say when that process began and how long it might take.

[5:45]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The process of looking at all the areas and what is suitable for golf course consideration or continued use as farmland is obviously going to take a little while. There have got to be some basic guidelines, which I would hope wouldn't take too long, to define what areas definitely should not be considered and which areas — call them grey areas or whatever you wish — may possibly be considered for use as a golf course if they are marginal lands.

I could not pin down a date when we will have that established. It was at a session I had with the Land Commission about two and a half to three months ago. The commission suggested we could look at ways of better defining what could possibly be used for golf course purposes.

MR. JONES: Order-in-council 1141 has been a disaster for prime agricultural land in this province. The minister's timetable and his inaction on this matter give me no cause for hope that anything is going to be done with respect to resurrecting what we had before, which was a reasonable approach. Golf courses were precluded at that time. Municipalities have had lots of time themselves. Several municipalities have done good work in terms of developing guidelines. I'm sure it's not going to take anywhere near the time the minister indicates, if he is serious about it.

MR. DE JONG: I believe the previous question asked the minister was regarding the goods and services tax, which I haven't had an answer to.

[ Page 11295 ]

However, I will await that answer after my following comments.

Another matter is of concern, particularly to the soft-fruit growers — the raspberry growers, strawberry growers — and also to the people who grow the various types of cabbages and so on, which takes an immense amount of work. It's often work that's done by teenagers and perhaps even younger people who are trying to make a few dollars during the summer months before returning to high school and so on. The point that is a bother to the agriculture community is the minimum wage. I know that the opposition probably would vie for a higher minimum wage every time, but we must remember that if.... We, as farmers in British Columbia, ought to be competitive, and we can be competitive. However, if the price of the product is continually being driven up by such things as the minimum wage, the farmer will no longer be able to be competitive in the delivery of the final product, which often has competition from the south or our neighbouring provinces.

The other point I'd like to ask the minister about is in relation to the previous question that I put about the imports and so on. There is a fair amount of concern at the present time, particularly by abattoir operators in the lower mainland and perhaps throughout all of British Columbia, about the large subsidies that are being paid in Alberta in order to invite cattle, either for slaughtering or for further feeding, into Alberta. There is a substantial subsidy paid, I understand. With the layoff of people in the abattoirs in the lower mainland, in particular, I believe it's of grave concern to the farmers here to get rid of their culls and so on — and the little bit of beef that is grown in the lower mainland and being butchered here.

The minister may wish to comment on whether there is any attempt being made through the conferences of western ministers to establish some reasonably level playing-field in those areas.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the questions I didn't respond to before about the GST, the GST relative to agriculture will save farmers approximately $250 million. It will take away the manufacturer's sales tax. Although the farmer will pay it when he buys a piece of equipment, he will have it refunded once he's done his paperwork and submitted it for a refund.

A subsequent question was what would happen to retail sales of food or to food we export. Food we export is not subject to the GST. Food bought at the store is not subject to the GST. Food that goes to a restaurant chain may well be subject to the GST. There are some savings for the farming community; but if you eat out, there are some costs to the consuming public. I have to remind the member that as I understand the existing rules of the GST, there will be no cost to consumers going to the store shelf. They will not have to pay the 7 percent tax.

The minimum wage. Obviously we have concerns. I have had concerns expressed to me by probably the same people who have expressed them to you, and very rightfully so. There is concern about raising the minimum wage and then reflecting that in the Employment Standards Act in what has to be paid per pound. It sometimes amounts to about 2 cents a pound each time we go up about 50 cents per hour, so it is fairly significant. We are cognizant of that, and we are looking at ways of trying to alleviate that cost.

It will reduce the request for labour in the farm fields, and they will turn towards mechanization. That will hurt the labour force to some extent, because a lot of people depend on summertime jobs picking fruit or vegetables for a little income. It's pretty important to them. In our ministry we are looking at how we can best deal with the issue of the increase in the minimum wage.

On the cattle feeders, you suggested that there is a problem in the abattoirs. We're well aware of it. We are looking at programs to try and help the industry. Albeit we have a couple of major abattoirs on the Prairie, we must try to find a way to level the playing-field — if I can use that term again — for our cattle feedlots and feeders here in British Columbia and the abattoirs.

MR. DE JONG: My last question to the minister is regarding the pea growers' association and the processors of peas. Apparently there is some movement underfoot by some of the processors — who often lease the land and fertilize it and take the crops off — to grow peas just south of the border. They do this because of the higher land prices in British Columbia, the higher rents that they require in order to cover their interest rates, the cost of labour being lower south of the border and money easier to obtain and at a lower rate of interest. I'm wondering whether the minister is aware of that problem. What can be done about it to counteract such actions by the processors?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The only one I know of at this stage that has contracted property south of the border is Fraser Valley Frosted Foods. They have, I believe, contracted some 400 acres to the south. There's no existing law that prevents them from doing so. But what we're concerned about, hon. member, is the presence of the Columbia root-rot nematode, if in fact that exists. It did exist in the fields in and around the Lynden area. When any truck moves from the U.S. side to the Canadian side, we're asking Agriculture Canada to have it fully inspected. Obviously it would have to be washed if it came out of a field. I might say that they have committed to very serious inspections of the peas as they come across. But I would use a lot of moral persuasion, as I have in the past, to try and convince the processors to grow their product right here in Canada and British Columbia where they market the produce and expect our B.C. consumers to buy it. I'm trying my darnedest, quite frankly, to get them to grow the produce here and employ B.C. people.

MR. G. HANSON: Fisheries, fish, marine-based responsibilities — two terrible things. Taxpayers are paying federal officials to sit and flop and bounce

[ Page 11296 ]

around on boats to make sure the Americans get 20 percent of our fish. What have you done to stop it? Why are you not stopping it? Why aren't the fish-processing plants along the coast staying open?

B.C. Packers is closing here for the first time in 60 years; 400 people have lost their jobs; no herring season; no salmon season. The writing on the wall is bad news for the fisheries, our third-biggest industry. I know the minister knows what I'm talking about.

Here we had the most ridiculous decision that could possibly be made. No other jurisdiction would contemplate giving 20 percent of our salmon stocks — next year it will be 25 per cent, for the next three years — into the United States. Isn't that about the most absurd thing that could possibly happen?

I've got a document here of research on the Magnuson Act brought in in 1977 in the United States. Given an allocation process for fish processors and fish harvesters, the United States is to have first dibs on the resource, to process it themselves and to create their own jobs.

Here we are. We used to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Now we pay tax dollars to have people sit and look over the side and count fish to go to the United States. Isn't that ridiculous? That's my first question.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can't disagree too much with the comments. It is ridiculous, quite frankly. But under GATT rules, as you know, the challenge from Icicle Seafoods in Seattle launched the whole thing in the first place. We as a government — and you are well aware of it — have expressed our very deep concerns relative to the salmon-herring agreement.

I concur in your thoughts on the Magnuson Act. We believe we should have a similar act in Canada. If we have the capability to process a product here, we darn well should be processing it here. That's the way it should be.

We know the comments you made about 20 percent.... That's over-the-side sales onto boats that can be exported, and up to 25 next year. But I would hope that the vast majority of that product would stay here in British Columbia. I don't believe the point you made a minute or two ago, that the product is automatically going to go down there.

A plant closed here in Victoria because, you said, there was no season for salmon or herring. Well, there are obviously seasons, but whether they are receiving the product and are capable of handling it efficiently, as the company desired.... I think that has to be a company decision. It is one that I had a great deal of concern about, as you did. But realistically, we have to face the fact that companies have to make those decisions, although I regret that that decision was made in Victoria.

I have to encourage companies involved in the fishery industry in British Columbia to continue to process as much as they possibly can in British Columbia, because it does employ a lot of people and is a valuable asset to the economy of this province.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that for years now, groundfish have been going by the thousands and thousands of pounds — and millions of dollars in payroll — to the cities, villages and small communities just south of the 49th parallel: Blaine, Bellingham, Anacortes and so on. There has been a shifting of processing capability to just south of the 49th parallel. What occurred with groundfish and the shifting of that fleet over there and the loss of all that payroll, goods and services is now occurring with herring and salmon.

[6:00]

We're going to see those jobs go south, and we're going to be losing our ability to feed ourselves, to process the God-given resource that we should be selling on the open market, providing employment to our people — good wages, good employment and good benefits. We have a product that has a high demand around the world, and we should be using that resource for the benefit of our citizens and not for the United States.

The Magnuson Act gives the authority on a resource allocation. They have a three-step system whereby.... It's a roundabout way of ensuring that American industry benefits from the fisheries resources within the 200-mile zone. It's a series of incentives, it's some red tape, and it's some things that makes it difficult for others to come in to get that raw resource and take it somewhere else to create employment. We should have the same thing. We should be pounding on Ottawa's door. What is Minister Valcourt's position on this? Why do they not fight for the west coast fishery? We're just taken to the cleaners on this, and it's just madness. I just can't believe that it's happening. But this particular thing has been canvassed before.

I want to talk to the minister about what's going to happen this summer and this salmon season with the implications of the Sparrow decision — or the lack of implementation and enforcement around the Sparrow decision. The Sparrow decision was a landmark decision advocating the existence of aboriginal rights to resources — that they get first dibs beyond conservation. It's a broad, far-reaching decision. We need to sit down at the bargaining table to discuss fisheries plans and management plans.

What do we have? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans have intercepted and seized nets on the same basis. Since the Sparrow decision, a series of seizures has occurred. That doesn't bode well. I'm saying to the minister that the biggest salmon run in the cycle is coming through the Georgia Strait up the Fraser River this year — the Adams River run. The whole Fraser River drainage system has a big year coming in the cycle; the dominant runs are here this year. There are competing demands for that resource.

I'd like to hear what the minister is doing in his own department to ensure that there is fair play on the fishing grounds, and that there is no harassment of the aboriginal people who are entitled to a share. I'd like to hear his views on that matter.

[ Page 11297 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the first part of your statements on the Magnuson Act, obviously we would like to see Mr. Valcourt and the federal government address the issue as quickly as they possibly can, because it is not right that one sector has rules as a trading partner to the south of us and we are not allowed to implement the same rules. So I concur with what you're saying. We are working on that; we are trying to get Mr. Valcourt's office and the federal government to bring in legislation that would authorize us to do the same thing.

It's important to recognize that if we are to save this resource, we're going to have to fight long and hard, and we'll have to do it not at loggerheads with one another, but by working together on it.

The question you asked on the.... Now I've lost my train of thought on the other one. On the issue of the Sparrow decision relative to the sockeye run — as you call it, the Adams River run — that's coming in this year and is underway, I think it's very important that we do not do anything against the court's decision. We are appealing that decision. Obviously we appealed it, but it dealt basically — as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer — with the allocation of food fish for our native people to quite an extent. I don't believe the resolution has been made.... As I understand it, but I could be corrected by legal authorities who could interpret it, the ruling does not necessarily resolve the problem of native fishing altogether, other than for the food sector. In that particular case we dealt with the length of the net that was in the river. The judge said that as long as it was for food fish, the length of the net was basically immaterial. We have to decide what happens to the rest of the native fishery.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we're going back between two subjects here, and I want to pick up again on the commercial fishery side, and the fact that across the line they have protection for local harvesting and processing. They have legislation in place that puts us at a disadvantage, given the harvesting and processing within our country.

We should file a complaint that we are unwilling to abide by the 20 percent rule because of the unfair situation that occurs in Washington State with the Magnuson Act. Why should we go merrily down the garden path giving them 20 percent of our fish, when they have processing regulations — whether they be roundabout or not — protecting the harvesters and processors in the state of Washington? We should not accept that. We should file a complaint, and we should take it to the federal government. We should file our complaint with GATT and the FTA and indicate that we simply cannot live with the situation that puts us at an imbalance like that. It's as if it's against the free trade agreement to have any kind of preferential hiring policy with contractors and so on within your own boundaries. Yet 39 states in the United States have such regulations in place.

When are we going to stop being patsies and dumbos with the United States? We need people who will fight for our rights, for our resources and for fairness — not a Tory government and an ersatz Tory government provincially giving our resources away. We've got to have people who will fight for our jobs.

The Sparrow decision deals with an aboriginal right, which clearly indicates there is an aboriginal right. The definition in terms of a fisheries plan can only be dealt with at the bargaining table through negotiations. It's just one more example of the kind of problem that surfaces in this province because of the inability, neglect and lack of willingness to face this question and sit down to work out the rights in a comprehensive manner. We can see that with the sockeye, with the Adams River run, with a landmark court case upholding aboriginal rights and, on the following day, seizure of the nets and equipment and more charges continuously being laid. That is not leading us to a peaceful, comprehensive settlement of these matters.

Because this falls within this minister's jurisdiction, I would encourage him to invite his staff and the resources within the provincial government to champion peace on the fishery grounds and in the allocation process, and to tell the DFO that their job is not to define these rights in their most narrow terms. Now DFO is doing studies on how many fish an aboriginal person can eat, how many ounces of fish they can consume, and all these narrow definitions. That's not conducive to any comprehensive, meaningful and mutually agreeable solution to the problems. I'd like to hear the minister's suggestions on whether we could file a complaint and not willingly agree to a 20 percent gift of the salmon resources and herring resources of this province to the United States.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You were going back and forth between the Adams River run and the 20 percent. It doesn't need to be emphasized too many times, but I think it's on the record, even through the Premier's task force, how strongly we objected to the position taken by the federal government and the tribunals, etc., that finally came up with 20 percent now and 25 percent next year. We still strongly object. We have not accepted that as a province. We continue to object, and we will continue to work to try and have that rectified, because it is not right.

I agree with you. We believe that the resource belongs to British Columbians and that it should be processed here in British Columbia, not necessarily shipped to the south. We think those jobs should be preserved. We took the side of the fishing industry as well as the unions when it came to the negotiations relative to this bilateral agreement, and we continue to pressure the federal government to make sure it tries to preserve this resource for Canadians and for British Columbians.

MR. G. HANSON: What does Mr. Valcourt say to you when you bring this to his attention?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The last time I talked to him he said: "We will be looking into it, and we will continue dialogue and discussions on your concerns." I said: "You can continue dialogue and discussion,

[ Page 11298 ]

but when will we have action? When do we find an answer from your government as to how we deal with this issue? That's what has to be resolved. We need a decision made as quickly as possible." He's well aware of that.

MR. G. HANSON: In your discussions with the federal Minister of Fisheries did you bring to his attention that the Magnuson Act is in place in Washington State and that they have right of first refusal on the raw resource? What is his answer to that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: He's well aware of the Magnuson Act, and he's well aware that the Magnuson Act is up for review, as you well know — at least I hope you know. We are still saying unequivocally that we have to have some sort of act that resembles and equates to the legislation that exists in the U.S.

MR. G. HANSON: Have you had discussions with Mr. Valcourt regarding the impact of the Sparrow decision on the salmon fishery of the strait of Juan de Fuca and the Fraser drainage system this coming year? Have you had discussions with him about the implications of that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I have had a discussion with him, and our staff continues to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Obviously the Sparrow decision is a major concern to the department. But I think relative to the fisheries industry in British Columbia, any court challenges or decisions that impact on what has been the norm, if I can use the word "norm," in the past — anything that markedly changes that — will be a major concern not only to us in British Columbia but to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is responsible for administering the salmon catch in this province.

MR. G. HANSON: Did you impress upon Mr. Valcourt the importance of having discussions about the Sparrow decision on the Fraser salmon resource? He's familiar with Indian affairs, as he held a portfolio in that area before. Did you discuss the need to sit down and have meetings with the various groups utilizing the resource through the Fraser drainage?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, we have to some extent. As you know, if you get into discussion on the Sparrow case, since there's an appeal.... We have some concerns, but we have to be careful how we address the issue relative to the appeal process that is underway. We are continuing discussions through two levels of staffing, and we'll continue to express our concerns as to the future of the Pacific fishery. But we also recognize the importance of native rights as well. I think we have to address it on a balance that respects both ways.

[6:15]

MR. G. HANSON: I have one other question with respect to aboriginal fisheries. The Nisga'a and the federal government have been at the bargaining table since 1976, and the province has been an observer off and on for 12 years. Fisheries, because it's primarily under federal jurisdiction, has been one of the major items for negotiation. Has your department been involved in those discussions?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, no.

MR. G. HANSON: Is that because the province is merely an observer at those negotiations, or is it because you don't want to involve yourself in the fisheries deliberations for the Nass River?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are only there as observers. I believe the Fisheries Council is watching the proceedings, and the member who is quite often there is Paddy Greene. But we are only there as observers.

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of very short questions. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that that's what everybody says when they get up.

I want to know whether or not the minister is aware of Trade Minister Crosbie's import order No. 1, and what its implications are. I can be a little more explicit if you wish.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not aware of it at the moment, but if you wish to explain your concern, I would certainly try and answer the question.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I've been informed that import order No. 1 permits the import from the United States of unpasteurized milk into our market. Are you aware of that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not positive on this; I wouldn't want to jeopardize my statement here. I believe you're correct in your assessment. But as I understand the health laws here, I don't believe you're allowed to sell raw milk; it has to be pasteurized.

MR. ROSE: I think we're all aware of that. The point is that if we've got a provincial law at odds with a federal law.... If people are going to import it, they're either going to use it themselves or else sell it to somebody else. The fact that these two laws seem to be at loggerheads is a very serious matter. There are large imports coming through customs all the time. People say between 20 and 25 percent.... It's bound to have, as we found out from the present chairman's hearings.... If you stop that import, you'd probably have many of the dairy industry's problems solved. But this is in addition; this is a specialty market, aimed at east Indians.

Our own producers are forbidden, according to our laws. There have been lots of court cases about this and lots of bitterness and lots of hard feelings. But what implications might it have where a Canadian import law permits the importation of a substance or a product that is denied our own produc-

[ Page 11299 ]

ers? It seems patently unfair. I would like to know what he thinks about this and what, if anything, he intends to do about it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have had concerns, obviously, about the supply of raw milk to consumers. There is a basic concern of health. I do not support.... If the federal government is allowing the importation of raw milk, I will certainly respond to that as quickly as I can, probably tomorrow. But it's not been brought to my attention that it has in fact happened.

Whether the federal government, through Mr. Crosbie's office, has authorized the importation of raw milk as a byproduct for an ethnic requirement is one thing. But we're not sure if it has entered the country. I will be glad, hon. member, to check that out tomorrow.

MR. ROSE: We know that we made certain alterations of a product for an ethnic requirement. The one that's most striking and most recent in my memory, though there may have been others, is barbecued duck — the great barbecued duck debate. Subsequently it was allowed that the ethnic group could pursue its traditional practices in that regard.

If what I'm alleging is the case, then I would ask the minister if he might not, through rather stringent regulations.... Nobody wants to put the public's health at risk. But if there is a requirement for an ethnic market, it seems to me there should be some arrangement made similar to the barbecued duck matter to permit this traditional practice — produced by our own people rather than having them denied an opportunity to fill that market, as they are or at least may be under import order No. 1.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I agree with the hon. member's comment, and I would certainly try and insist that if we have these specialty markets that require a product.... I believe in the barbecued duck case it was a requirement of meeting health standards. The same criteria should apply to milk. We should be producing milk right here in British Columbia to supply those needs.

Vote 8 approved.

Vote 9: ministry operations, $59,322,367 — approved.

Vote 10: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,431,443 — approved.

Vote 11: agrifood regional development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $13,775,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The purpose of this bill is to expand the exemption from property purchase tax for transfers of principal residences between related individuals. This change is needed to recognize the unique circumstances which often occur in interfamily transfers.

By way of background, the exemption for transfers of principal residences between related individuals currently requires that the property must be the transferor's principal residence when the property is transferred. As I am sure members on both sides of this House are aware, it is often the case in interfamily transfers that the transferee, the person acquiring the property, actually lives on the property when the transfer is registered in a land title office. Under the current legislation, property purchase tax is payable in this circumstance.

There are many situations arising from interfamily transfers which the bill will help to address. This bill expands the exemption for transfers of principal residences between related individuals to allow the exemption where the property is the principal residence of either the transferor or the transferee. In order to ensure that the exemption is provided only for transfers of property which are actually used as principal residences, the transferor or transferee must have lived in the residence for at least six months prior to the transfer. Parallel amendments are also made to the provisions relating to transfers of principal residences through the use of inter vivos trusts to ensure consistency with this amendment.

If these circumstances had been anticipated when the act was first introduced, the actions the government is proposing today would have been unnecessary, because they would have been addressed at that time. For this reason the expansion of this exemption is retroactive to March 23, 1987, the date the property purchase tax was first introduced. Taxpayers who would have benefited from this amendment, had it been in place when the act was first introduced, will be given an opportunity to apply to the administrator of the property purchase tax before August 18, 1991, for a refund of the tax paid.

This bill represents a reasoned and appropriate response to the unique circumstances which occur in interfamily transfers of principal residences.

MR. CLARK: Try as I might, I haven't been able to detect any time bombs in this piece of legislation. I may live to regret that statement. It is a bit unfortunate that these changes weren't incorporated in the earlier amending bill, and maybe someone can explain to me why we need two bills amending the same piece of legislation with essentially modest amendments.

It is unfortunate also that there weren't some more substantive changes — such as closing the loop-

[ Page 11300 ]

hole that allows corporations to escape the property purchase tax; dealing with the new problem of the vendor continuing to hold title in name only and escaping taxes in that way; and thirdly, dealing with exempting intercorporate transfers. If those three had been in this bill, it would have been a lot better and a lot easier for us to support it. Having said that, we have no problem with this legislation — at least none that I can detect.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I want to point out to the member opposite that an estimated 9,000 taxpayers are expected to receive a refund of tax at a cost of $9 million for this retroactive period — just a further illustration of how fair-minded and generous-spirited this government is. In any event, I am pleased to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 70, Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, 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. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING ACT, 1990

HON. L. HANSON: It is my privilege to put forward Bill 34, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990. The bill contains measures designed to dissolve the southern Okanagan Lands Irrigation District and assign all assets and liabilities to the town of Osoyoos and the village of Oliver. It validates a cabinet order to this effect and all actions pursuant to that order.

The bill also contains measures to allow the district of Invermere to fund a court-assisted settlement with the former mayor. These measures will allow the district of Invermere to adopt a loan authorization bylaw with respect to this settlement in order that municipal taxes will not have to be raised.

The bill validates the city of Fort St. John development cost bylaw No. 748. The validation of this bylaw will prevent the financial hardship and tax increases that would otherwise result for the city of Fort St. John.

In addition, the bill ensures that no present or past Islands Trust land-use bylaw can be challenged or declared void because of a failure to follow statutory preconditions. These measures will ensure that the new Islands Trust organization starts afresh with land-use bylaws that can be enforced.

I move that Bill 34 be read for a second time now.

[6:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Having studied this bill in detail, we have no problems in supporting it. There may be one or two questions in committee — maybe.

There's something that I wish to put on note as something I think the government is perhaps doing well. I gather that what is happening and has happened in the last few years is that ministers have been hearing concerns about specific issues from local municipalities. What's clear through this bill and other bills we've had over the last few years is that those issues are being resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible by these kinds of enabling pieces of legislation. They may look mundane and boring to the average reader, but to those key municipalities they are critical issues. Obviously we support that kind of approach: that as quickly as possible through legislation we have these kinds of bills. So we thank the minister for bringing this forward and we support it.

HON. L. HANSON: I know that the discussion will continue when we deal with the bill at committee level.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990, 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. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. L. HANSON: It is my privilege to put forward Bill 71, the Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990. The bill contains revisions designed to improve municipal powers relating to building plan requirements. These measures will allow municipalities to require building plans to be certified by a professional engineer or an architect, and provides liability protection for municipalities relying on professional certification that plans comply with the Building Code.

The bill also corrects several legislative errors; it includes a correction that validates local zoning regulations and a correction to the legal description for the Whistler Conference Centre and Golf Course.

MR. BLENCOE: Generally we are in support of this legislation. However, the issue of limiting municipal liability has become an extremely contentious one, one that I'm not sure we really all feel that good about, quite frankly. I'm sure the minister has come across situations where we're caught. We don't want to expose the municipality to extreme liability questions, but the rights of the individual citizen who feels that the city or the town has been liable or has been negligent.... The concern is that we're limiting the citizen's ability to take a legal course of action against the city within which they live. My elbow and my instincts are beginning to tell me that we may be going a little too far with limiting the liability of

[ Page 11301 ]

municipalities in terms of citizens' feeling. I've had it happen many times that citizens find that they just can't.... They have documentation and there is every evidence that the municipality may be at fault, but because we've now limited liability, those citizens find it very hard to get proper action.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In committee I may ask a few more questions about this. The minister, who is also very experienced in municipal affairs, having come from that background, probably knows what I mean about the citizens feeling that they can't get anything anymore. I'll leave it at that, but I just put it on record that we may have reached the extreme in terms of limiting or reducing the liability of local government when some of these issues arise where citizens feel they're aggrieved.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. L. HANSON: I would just point out to the member opposite that the limiting of liability is only in that the municipalities' liability has been reduced in the case of a professional certification; that the plan complies with the Building Code; and that it in no way relieves the municipality of any responsibility to ensure that the building is constructed according to the plans, but simply relieves them of the responsibility of checking the plans completely for conforming to the building bylaws when it is certified by a professional that that is the case.

In any case, we'll get into that discussion at committee stage. I am therefore happy, Mr. Speaker, to move that Bill 71 be read for the second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 78.

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
REFORM ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. L. HANSON: Bill 78 contains the second round of property tax reforms to be put forward in the Legislature this year. The central feature of the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990, is a new definition of those improvements which are subject to property taxation. This definition is retroactive to 1987 and subsequent taxation years. The new definition clarifies which improvements are subject to property taxation.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is particularly relevant in regard to industrial property where it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish taxable structures from exempt machinery. The new measures address municipal concerns about the erosion of the industrial tax base resulting from a number of judicial decisions that have narrowed the scope of property that can be assessed under the current legislation.

The application of the definition to the 1987-1990 period will ensure that a number of industrial improvements which were assessed for those years will remain assessable, and that municipal tax refunds in respect of possible court decisions will not be required. The change is not intended to increase overall property taxes paid by the industrial taxpayer. These taxes were reduced by an estimated $200 million between 1984 and 1988 as a result of the elimination of school and regional district taxes imposed on machinery and equipment. Over 40 percent, $83 million, of these savings accrued to the forest industry, with an additional 14 percent, $28 million, accruing to the mining industry. The newer lower levels of industrial property taxation will be maintained by legislation. However, these measures will keep unintended deletions from the existing property tax base from impacting local government, while maintaining competitive industrial property tax levels.

This bill completes this year's legislative agenda for property taxation and municipal finance. We have taken a number of progressive steps to deal with the concerns of local government, while maintaining a system which is equitable for the property taxpayer. These actions implement many of the ideas that were brought forward in the "Financing Local Government" study and the property tax reforms carried out last year.

MR. CLARK: Industrial assessments have been a problem in British Columbia for some time. During the massive recession, which was made deeper by the previous Bennett administration's policies, industrial property owners appealed their taxes. As we know, it's very easy to find a market valuation for a home, because homes sell in the neighbourhood and there's a real market. But there are not very many people who buy pulp mills every day, so the valuation of pulp mills is extremely difficult. During the recession, many owners of large industries appealed their property tax assessments and were successful in rolling back those assessments by tens of millions of dollars.

As a result, the previous administration — Hugh Curtis, former Minister of Finance — struck a committee of technical people to review the industrial assessments. I rather liked the committee's report, frankly. It gave several options. It's unfortunate that your predecessor chose not to implement the findings of the Curtis-sponsored inquiry into industrial assessments and, as a result, brought in major changes to deal with the same problem two years ago.

I spoke at length at that time, and I won't repeat that today. However, it's obvious from these amendments that the changes brought in by this administra-

[ Page 11302 ]

tion two years ago have failed completely to deal with the problem. So here we are with another amendment to deal with the attendant consequence. The mess — if I can put it that way — created by the changes two years ago is what we're now dealing with retroactively in this bill.

Having said that, I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, because it's trying to deal with a very serious problem, particularly to single-industry towns. If it works, I congratulate the government. However, I must say that I thought that the thoughtful and detailed critique of industrial assessments and different valuations that were.... There were three options, as I recall, put forward by the Hugh Curtis–sponsored inquiry. While complicated, I thought there was a lot of merit to them.

I don't have any hesitation in supporting this, but I still think that those recommendations are worth revisiting. A slightly more radical change would be required, given the way they structured the assessment of industrial land. My own view was that it was worthwhile.

Having said that, I hope this deals with a very serious problem for some municipalities in British Columbia. We have no hesitation in supporting it and wishing it success.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member has looked at the bill closely. For his information, when we brought in the tax exemption for machinery, there was a definition of what was machinery. We have since had some decisions that appear to be slightly different in what the interpretation of machinery is, and therefore what is exempt. I don't think it actually deals with the issue that you were....

In any case, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 78, Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990, 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. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 74.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to move second reading of Bill 74. This act amends sections of the Range Act in order to clarify the rights which are conveyed in grazing and haycutting tenures. It also specifies the tenure-holder's entitlement to compensation should all or part of those rights be revoked.

While the intent of the Range Act tenures has been to convey rights only with respect to utilizing forage on Crown range, under the wording of the current act they may be construed to convey an interest in land. The amendments clearly state that the tenure rights apply to forage only, thereby protecting the public's interest in ownership of Crown land.

The right of the province to grant the use of the land under a range tenure for other compatible purposes is confirmed. Some specific uses that will be permitted on a range tenure are listed in the bill. For those cases where land area must be deleted from a tenure for an incompatible use, the bill specifies formulas for determining compensation. Compensation for loss of grazing or hay-cutting rights is limited to the fee that would have been paid during the remaining term of the tenure if rights had not been revoked. Compensation for loss of the use of capital projects such as fences is limited to a portion of the cost of the project.

[6:45]

The bill states that the Expropriation Act does not apply to these deletions, thereby bringing Range Act tenures in line with Forest Act tenures. This is an important provision, because the Expropriation Act presents possibilities of compensation settlements that exceed by a considerable amount what is intended under the Range Act.

The bill validates grazing tenures which were renewed without proper compliance with a timing provision in the current Range Act. This confirms the tenure-holder's rights and ensures that any deletions which may have occurred since those tenures were issued will qualify for the compensation provisions laid out in this bill.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I've attempted to go through this bill in some detail, and in committee stage I will get into a number of things. I understand the intent of the bill.

I wonder if you can expand on some of the conflicts that have occurred that led you to this. For example, is this bill designed to overcome the conflicts between some of the guides and packers in the northern part of British Columbia, where you have overlapping tenures or exclusive tenures, however it's interpreted? If you'd care to comment on that, then I'll ask my other question after.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You can't do that. This is second reading.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Because it's before the courts? No?

This is the principle of the bill, the purpose of bringing in the legislation. Was it designed to rectify some of those problems? In your introductory comments you didn't refer to that.

Generally we're supportive of rationalizing the allocation of tenures to remove conflicts. Most of my comments will remain for the clause-by-clause debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

[ Page 11303 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This bill is not designed to deal with conflicts between users such as guides, packers, etc. It is designed mainly for two purposes: to compensate for loss of tenure when the land is being expropriated for other uses, and to validate some grazing tenures which were renewed improperly. We can get into the details when we go into committee; then we can get a question-and-answer thing going.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to move second reading of Bill 74.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, Range Amendment Act, 1990, 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. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 41.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have some brief comments about an amendment act that deals with very particular sections. It's fairly clear there's a reference in the Pacific Bible College Act to the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, which no longer exists. Therefore it replaces that reference.

The one section clarifies that school boards can hire teachers on a letter of permission. I might point out that, inadvertently, the legislation was certainly intended that way — that boards may only hire members of the college. The college has the right to grant a letter of permission, but the letter-of-permission person is not a member of the college. We've had to correct that to allow both a member of the college and a letter of permission for a teacher to be hired.

This amendment was put in — which we can deal with in the clause-by-clause discussion — on the order paper to make certain the college has the right to set the criteria that any administrative officer or superintendent employed by a board must hold a certificate of qualification. The question was whether the college should determine the criteria for a superintendent. That was never the intent, so the qualification requirements are as a teacher.

When we dealt with the confidentiality section, the technical wording of the legislation prevents us from providing marks to the people who need them. This amendment allows the confidentiality to be retained, but does allow the ministry to do the job of providing marks to, say, a university.

In the Teaching Profession Act the legislation had specified that the election take place on a specific date. With mail-order ballots the one date is now expanded to a period of time to make that possible. That basically clarifies some of the sections of the act where the College of Teachers and the BCTF wanted to make sure the language of the bill reflected the intent of the legislation. Regarding bylaws by the college, there is an extension from 30 days for consideration of the bylaws to 60 days to allow more time to deal with these.

That about covers the amendments in this bill. With that, I move second reading.

MR. BLENCOE: In the absence of our critic, who is on family business and absent from the House, I'm told we support this bill. We will deal with any questions in committee.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't add anything to it other than that it will clarify some inadvertent technicalities that have cropped up and have been pointed out to us. This corrects those and makes the legislation that much better. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 44: minister's office, $301,501.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm pleased to take my place in the debate of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates for the fiscal year 1990-91. You know the people with me: the assistant deputy minister, Jacquie Rice; and the deputy, Claude Heywood.

My ministry encompasses a wide range of complex and often sensitive issues and programs with a large area of influence that is sometimes not fully appreciated by people who are unfamiliar with the ministry.

To help hon. members who may have specific areas of concern or interest, I'll deal with my ministry's programs in the following order: alcohol and drug programs; CounterAttack; liquor control and licensing; liquor distribution; Workers' Compensation Board — which, along with the LDB, I will touch on briefly, although it is not part of my ministry votes; compensation advisory services; employment standards; industrial relations; consumer services, including the residential tenancy branch; investigation services; motor dealer licensing; cemeteries; debtor assistance; registrar of travel; and finally, the Council of Human Rights.

There's no significance to the order in which I have chosen to describe these programs and their activities. However, I would like to begin by describing our efforts in the fight against alcohol and drug abuse, since this has been such a visible part of our activity over the past year.

[ Page 11304 ]

We are well into the third successful year of the TRY program. During '90-91 government will spend a total of $50.9 million on the prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. Included in this amount is $8.5 million for prevention programs and $38.1 million for treatment programs. The latter include expanding residential treatment programs, outpatient counselling, detoxification centres and supportive recovery programs.

I am convinced that through the TRY program we have made excellent progress in raising awareness about alcohol and drug abuse. TRY is much more than a media campaign. Our funding agencies spend approximately 15 percent of their counselling resources on prevention programs, in addition to treatment services. People everywhere are taking that important step from just thinking about the problem to actually becoming involved in finding a solution for themselves or for their neighbours.

TRY, as my hon. colleagues are well aware, stands for "the responsibility is yours." Through the TRY program, communities all over the province have joined government in a cooperative venture to shoulder that responsibility. Through the TRY program, government is making treatment programs available in communities which previously had no outpatient services. One of our goals is to make these services accessible to every part of the province. One hundred and seventy-one agencies and 21 corrections services now receive government funding, compared to only 64 when the TRY program was first introduced.

Since the toll-free information and referral TRYline was introduced in January 1989, we have had close to 16,000 calls from people asking for more information about substance abuse. Some of these calls are real cries for help, such as the recent one from a man on the brink of suicide. Thanks to a referral from the trained TRYline staff, he was able to turn his life around and stop drinking and taking drugs.

Among many other excellent programs, TRY funds a special ward at the Sunny Hill Hospital for Children. One of my first duties as minister was to visit that hospital, where babies suffering from drug withdrawal are treated. That experience made a lasting impression on me. I was reminded of it recently as acting Minister of Social Services, in dealing with the foster parent program, where many of those sick babies are ultimately placed. It has certainly been an eye-opening experience for me. I am fully dedicated to the critical fight against substance abuse, which affects all of us in one way or another.

In a related program, our drinking-driving CounterAttack program is in its fourteenth year and has rightfully earned an international reputation for excellence and effectiveness in the fight against drinking-driving. Twice a year, at Christmas and in the spring, our police roadcheck campaigns check thousands of vehicles. Last year almost 744,000 vehicles were checked. The visible police presence, combined with an intensive public awareness campaign, greatly reduced the number of alcohol-related accident casualties. In fact, in 1989 the motor vehicle branch and the police reported the lowest number of alcohol-related casualty traffic accidents since records began being kept in 1977. We intend to keep on reducing those figures.

CounterAttack encourages the public to report suspected drivers to the police. As a consequence, between 10 and 15 percent of all drinking-driving charges stem from these public reports — about 1,500 each year. Additionally, the increased perception of apprehension produced by these messages to the public has contributed to more than a 50 percent reduction in alcohol-related casualty traffic accidents over the last 13 years.

The overall change in attitude towards drinking and driving is also reflected in our new responsible beverage service program, Serving It Right. This new program was developed in cooperation with the industry and in response to industry requests during the liquor policy review. Serving It Right is designed to provide information on legal rights and responsibilities related to the service of alcohol, and to help licensees and servers prevent problems associated with the service of alcohol in licensed establishments.

[7:00]

Mr. Chairman, our overall liquor licensing procedure was subjected to an overall review last year. As a result, three important improvements were made to the liquor licensing process in British Columbia. We have established a new Liquor Licensing Committee and a new Liquor Appeal Board. These are designed to improve the liquor licensing process, making it more effective and more open.

Also, municipalities now participate to a great extent in the licensing procedure. The Liquor Licensing Committee, composed of nine senior officials of the ministry and chaired by the general manager and his panel of three officials, hear all significant licence applications, licence amendments and enforcement matters. Committee decisions are made available in writing, and the public is given the opportunity to make written submissions on specific licence applications.

The Liquor Appeal Board is an independent tribunal, and its hearings are open to the public. The success of the licensing system is demonstrated by the fact that there has been a substantial drop in the number of appeals since this board was created November 17, 1989. In the first seven months of operation there were only 30 appeals, less than one-third the number of appeals in the previous seven months. I would like to point out that in the 1988-89 fiscal year there were 94 appeals to the Commercial Appeals Commission and 137 appeals to the minister, for a total of 231 appeals.

The third significant change concerns the process of determining the opinion of residents regarding the proposed licensed establishment. The process of gathering public opinion is now undertaken by local municipalities or boards, following initial provincial screening and approval. This process is allowing greater flexibility for local governments, permitting them to tailor their opinion-gathering methods to suit the needs of the local residents.

[ Page 11305 ]

The liquor distribution branch also plays a significant role in encouraging people to drink in moderation by helping to distribute the CounterAttack and TRY message. The first visible non-alcoholic products are now on the store shelves of our liquor stores. Our liquor distribution branch is the first provincial liquor authority in Canada to list non-alcoholic beers. The liquor distribution branch has always encouraged responsible and moderate consumption and works to reinforce the responsibility message through close links with CounterAttack and TRY.

It is valuable to have all these programs consolidated under one ministry to coordinate our approach to the serious problems of alcohol and drug abuse. In particular, I'm told by members of my staff who have been in the public service for many years that never before has there been such a high degree of consultation and cooperation between the various arms of government that deal with issues of the use — and, regrettably, the abuse — of alcoholic beverages.

I'd also like to mention that the liquor distribution branch is demonstrating leadership in environmental responsibility. The LDB Green Team is spearheading a recycling project which involves depositing recyclable paper in boxes donated by Canadian Fibre, a large B.C. recycler. The Green Team was also in action at the Vancouver International Wine Festival, where 3,000 pounds of cardboard and 8,000 pounds of glass were gathered for recycling. Branch employees are taking a personal interest in this project and are enthusiastic in their search for ways to recycle and reduce waste. Finally, on the topic of liquor distribution, I would like to welcome the new general manager of the branch, Mr. Ian Munroe, who joined us July 1 of this year.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like now to turn the hon. members' attention to the Workers' Compensation Board. Last year, because of B.C.'s positive economic climate, 1.3 million people were working in British Columbia, an increase of 78, 000 workers. Although the number of first-reported claims increased from 192,515 to 207,019, the accident frequency did not increase in proportion to the size of the workforce. I understand that average claim severity has also remained relatively stable.

The number of employers registered with the WCB has also grown. Assessment income from employers in 1989 increased nearly 18 percent over 1988 to $520,737,000. The maximum wage rate for calculating benefits was increased from $41,300 in 1988 to $42,200 in 1989.

The WCB currently pays a maximum weekly rate of $624.25 per week, the highest weekly compensation rate in Canada. Compare this to $505.56 paid in Ontario and $491.07 paid in Quebec.

Legislation to create a new Workers' Compensation Board governing structure is in place. The new structure will give labour and management significant responsibilities in the development of WCB policies, programs and procedures. This legislation came about as a result of the report submitted by a committee chaired by Don Munroe and will serve to strengthen the cooperation already existing in this area between labour and management.

Transitional sections of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act have already been proclaimed, making it possible to phase in restructuring without disrupting WCB's ability to serve employers and employees. In March five workers and five employer representatives were appointed to the new board of governors. These appointees were chosen for their individual career expertise and proven track record. They bring a balance of independent judgment to the WCB. The next step in the process will be the appointment of a chairman and two public interest representatives.

The WCB provides an excellent service to British Columbians. I'm very proud of its outstanding retraining program for injured workers and its excellent health and safety programs. During 1989 a total of 2,865 educational programs were presented, and a logging safety program was introduced to all regions of the province.

People who want to appeal decisions made by the WCB have recourse through the Workers' Compensation Review Board. The ministry's review board acts as an independent administrative tribunal separate from the WCB. Very few WCB claims are actually appealed to the review board, only about 2 percent, but because of the large numbers of WCB claims each year, this still represents a significant number of appeals. Last year, for instance, a total of 4,930 appeals were received at the review board.

Another ministry program to help workers and employers in their dealings with the WCB is the compensation advisory services. The office of the workers' advisory provides advice or assistance to injured workers and their dependents to help them understand the benefits and policies of the WCB. In 1989-90 this office received approximately 4,000 inquiries, of which 125 were referrals from MLAs. I know that my colleagues are familiar with this service. The office of the employers' advisory offers a parallel service for employers. Owing to the increased demand for service from employers and workers, staff levels are being increased in these offices.

The employment standards branch also plays a key role in helping workers to understand their rights in the workplace. This branch helps employers on all matters arising from the Employment Standards Act and its regulations. During 1989 this branch handled almost 17,000 complaints. Action taken on these complaints resulted in the recovery of more than $5.9 million in unpaid wages, overtime, vacation and severance pay for B.C. workers.

In another labour program, the Industrial Relations Council completed its second full year of operation in 1989 with an increase in the amount and complexity of applications. The disputes resolution division monitored all labour disputes and helped parties to resolve their conflicts voluntarily and to negotiate new collective agreements. Last year the council received 3,876 applications addressing legal issues such as the acquisition and termination of

[ Page 11306 ]

bargaining rights, unfair labour practices and allegations of illegal strikes, lockouts or picketing activity. This heavy caseload is dealt with by the adjudication division. Of the 3,876 applications received, 3,794 were disposed of during 1989. The process of dealing with applications speedily was helped tremendously by the use of the new computerized system designed to keep track of applications right through the adjudication process to final disposition.

Because of the high calibre of officers, council members and support staff and the new computerized equipment, the IRC is able to provide a streamlined and effective service for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the minimum wage has been increased twice in the past year. It was raised from $4.50 to $4.75 on October 1 of last year and again to $5 on April 1 of this year. This compares favourably with other provinces. Our minimum wage is higher than the rates in six other provinces and equal to the current rate in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

I have recently introduced new legislation in the form of an exposure bill which would provide minimum standards for employment pension plans in this province. This important and complex legislation is targeted to take effect January 1, 1993, which allows good time for British Columbians to review the proposal in detail and to suggest improvements. The legislation will be of real benefit to workers in the province — especially those who hold a number of jobs during their working lives — and will give greater flexibility and security to older women.

Another major responsibility of my ministry is consumer services. Our mandate in this area is to seek a fair balance in the marketplace by protecting consumers without infringing upon the rights and responsibilities of business. There have been some recent important legislation changes in these areas designed to protect the consumer.

During 1989 the Residential Tenancy Act was amended, giving government arbitrators the power to settle disputes between landlords and tenants over monetary issues, such as security deposits. Also, tenancy protection was extended to permanent residents in lower-cost hotels, motels, inns and roominghouses. Prior to these changes the residential tenancy branch received an average of 519 arbitration applications a month. Following the changes, this figure jumped 65 percent to 857 applications per month. We also took action to prevent landlords from converting month-to-month tenancies to long-term leases without municipal approval. Some tenants have faced eviction when informed they would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for these leases.

Most recently we have introduced some very important legislation changes to the Residential Tenancy Act to protect tenants. These changes address many of the concerns of people who rent, particularly families with children, protecting them from discriminatory rental and eviction practices.

[7:15]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Also included in the legislation is a provision that will require a landlord to obtain prior municipal approval before converting vacant rental units to long-term leases. This now means that all month-to-month tenancies, vacant or occupied, cannot be converted to leases exceeding 20 years or more without municipal approval.

The new legislation also implements recommendations made in the recent Mobile Home Task Force report.

Mr. Chairman, changes such as these result in many additional inquiries to the residential tenancy branch. During 1989 the branch answered 107,196 phone calls and saw 17,532 walk-ins. Besides answering questions about new legislation, the branch is also involved in public education, sending speakers out to schools, consumer-education classes, community groups and landlord-tenant groups. Our pamphlet, "Renting in B.C.," outlines tenants' and landlords' rights and responsibilities. I'm told that this is one of the most popular and widely circulated pamphlets issued by the provincial government. Its aim is to help consumers find the answers to their questions before there is a problem.

Another consumer program, our consumer operations branch, includes the investigation services and trade practices branch, the motor dealer licensing branch, the credit reporting agency and the cemeteries branch. Consumer Operations administers statutes to protect the consumer and fairly regulate industry, and consequently these statutes are always under review to reflect changes in industry and consumer requirements.

The new Cemetery and Funeral Services Act was proclaimed this year. It replaces five outdated acts which regulated the cemetery, cremation and funeral service industry. One of the most important changes in this act is the banning of direct selling and telephone solicitation for cemeteries and funeral goods and services. The ban also applies to direct selling of any form of insurance intended to provide for plots, services or memorials. I know that many people have been distressed by receiving these solicitation calls at a time of grief and illness. Under the act, an advisory council has been established to provide me with advice on industry and public issues.

My ministry also provides legislation protection to people who are visually impaired and rely on the use of guide dogs. The Blind Persons Rights Act has now been replaced by the Guide Animal Act, which extends the same legislative protection to people with hearing impairment and others who use animals for assistance. This up-to-date legislation has been welcomed by many people who rely on these highly trained animals to help them lead independent lives.

Consumer matters relating to deceptive practices in the marketplace are handled by our investigation services and trade practices branch. During the year this branch received 31,075 complaints, issued 314 warnings and laid 23 criminal charges. The major areas of complaint were related to deceptive and misleading practices affecting the elderly and the

[ Page 11307 ]

disabled, particularly with regard to home repairs. One recent case that I might mention involved a 90-year-old woman who had paid out $64,000 for home renovations actually valued at $1,500. I'm pleased to say that thanks to the diligence of my staff, the renovator was ordered to pay back this lady's life savings and was sentenced to two years in prison.

The motor dealer licensing branch administers the Motor Dealer Act, regulating 1,600 motor dealers in the province and giving protection to the purchase of new and used vehicles. In 1989-90 the registrar conducted 39 disciplinary hearings.

The activities of our province's credit industry are regulated by the Credit Reporting Act, which is administered by the registrar of reporting agencies. To give you some indication of the extent to which consumer credit affects our lives, I can tell you that in our province at the end of the fiscal year there was approximately $10 billion in consumer credit outstanding to banks, trust companies, credit unions, mortgage companies and department stores, and $15 billion in mortgage credit.

For consumers not able to cope with their outstanding debts, the consumer credit and debtor assistance branch provides counselling and practical help. The branch serves both the debtor and the creditor, acting as a mediator to prevent the debtor from going bankrupt and ensuring that the creditor receives regular payments of the debt. During the year, the branch counselled 5,247 clients and arranged 651 repayment plans, averting financial disaster for clients. For many of these people, getting their finances straightened out brings a great sense of relief and restoration of self esteem. As well, $4.6 million was returned to creditors, an increase of 9.5 percent over the previous year.

We also protect B.C. consumers when they are making their travel arrangements through a registered travel agent. This includes rescuing stranded holiday-makers and reimbursing would-be travellers through the travel assurance fund when carriers are unable to fill their obligation. To give you a recent example, in January this year Points of Call Airlines ceased operation, leaving 850 B.C. residents stranded in Honolulu and Mexico without return transportation. Through the office of the registrar and the Travel Assurance Board we were able to bring these holiday-makers home.

The travel assurance fund will also reimburse more than 2,000 B.C. consumers who paid for but did not receive their trip. I happened to be returning from Hawaii with several of the stranded passengers. For the record, I was not one of the stranded people, but the people in the seat in front of me were. They had been delayed one hour in Honolulu on their return trip home, thanks to the efficiency of this program.

MR. MILLER: You were on business, were you?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I was on business. I must admit that I was very proud when several of my fellow travellers commented on the excellent response by the government in bringing them home.

During 1989-90 year a total of 667 consumers were reimbursed $482,975 through the travel assurance fund. On March 31 the balance of the travel assurance fund stood at $428,561.

Another project which comes under my jurisdiction is the B.C. Council of Human Rights. The council received more than 800 human rights inquiries during the '89-90 year. It opened 380 formal investigations, a 9 percent increase over the previous year, and referred 126 cases to hearings. Many of these hearings related directly to on-the-job racial discrimination, sexual harassment and age discrimination. The council also plays a significant role in educating British Columbians about their fundamental rights.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank John Joe, who has served as chairman of the Council of Human Rights until his recent appointment as a Provincial Court judge. Under his leadership the council has continued to enjoy a high profile and be an effective agency for the protection of the human rights of our citizens. I would like to welcome Judith Williamson as acting chairman. Ms. Williamson's extensive legal and administrative experience and her knowledge of workplace issues will be of great benefit to the council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, under standing orders your time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: More, more.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You want more?

MR. JONES: How many more pages?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have about two more paragraphs; half a page.

MR. REID: I'm finding this so enlightening that I would appreciate the minister continuing and filling us in on the balance of the activities going on in his ministry.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Finally, I want to mention that I receive many letters from consumers commending my staff for their outstanding work. It is always a pleasure to pass on these well-deserved comments. I am reminded time and time again that my ministry functions efficiently and effectively because of the high calibre of my staff and their personal dedication to their work. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for another excellent year.

MRS. BOONE: I don't intend to go on in my introduction nearly as long as the minister did as he outlined all of his programs.

I would like to make a couple of comments before we get on to some questions here. Last year the ministry obviously had some considerable problems with licensing, and I am pleased to see the appoint-

[ Page 11308 ]

ment of the appeal board. Since that time a lot of problems have gone — in terms of people who are phoning or coming to see me, anyway. However, I will give you notice right now that I have questions that relate to some licensing procedures which took place prior to you becoming the minister. Unfortunately the minister's appointment does not go from fiscal year to fiscal year, so I don't have any other opportunity to do that.

I'd like to say at the outset that although the alcohol and drug program is one of the most important programs in this province and one that should be supported very highly, I don't believe — and I've said this every year — it should be in this ministry. This should be in the Ministry of Health. Alcoholism is a disease and I feel there is a tremendous conflict here when the ministry that's dealing with liquor distribution is also dealing with alcohol and drug programs.

From the people that I've spoken with — some of them very knowledgeable of alcohol and drugs — it's become clear to me that alcoholism and the alcohol and drug programs should be integrated within the entire health system and not treated as something aside and special. It's something that should be dealt with as a disease within that system, not as something separate or as an entity that's not even a disease. I do have some real problems with regard to it being in this ministry. Of course, there is nothing the minister can do about that, but I really think that it should be someplace else.

I'd like to understand what's happening with the TRY program. I've been getting varied responses. Some people say the TRY program is wonderful and that there are wonderful programs going on. Others say it's a sham, maybe because they're unable to get funding for a particular project or because they see moneys going out in a direction that they don't think is appropriate. Unfortunately it means that I don't have a perspective of the TRY program, because I'm getting such differing remarks from different people.

However, I will be asking the minister some questions regarding the program and its future. I understand that it's either quitting or ending very shortly, and those people involved with it and who think that they have good programs are very concerned as to what's going to happen in the future.

The Serving It Right program is a good idea that seems to have gone sour for some reason. The Serving It Right program was something when.... It's not very often that you get somebody phoning you out of the blue — which I got from the association in my area, saying that there was going to be an announcement of a Serving It Right program and that the hotel and restaurants association in Prince George was entirely behind it. They thought it was a wonderful program, and then to have things sour on that whole program later.... I'm concerned about that.

It was a program that was promoted through the liquor policy review, the Jansen report, and it was advocated by a number of different people to be administered through colleges and the Open Learning Institute and not necessarily through private individuals — which is what has happened right now.

I was a little surprised to hear the minister talking in such glowing terms of WCB. This is one area where I certainly do know what I feel, and I think members on this side can tell you that a good portion of their time is spent dealing with people who are having difficulties with WCB and who are unable to receive just treatment there. It appears to me that the first line is, in many cases, to deny and to turn down — not the appeals, but the initial applications — and individuals are left to appeal.

[7:30]

I think it's indicative when you have to have associations of disabled workers — and there are disabled workers' associations throughout this province right now — that are formed merely to assist individuals in working with and coping with WCB. I think it is telling you, and should tell your ministry, that when people have to form associations to get just treatment through WCB, obviously there's a problem, and one that is not being addressed through your ministry. The appeal process that you have put in place is not adequate; it is not adequate that these people are forced into going through appeal after appeal in order to get some kind of justice.

I would like to mention the Employment Standards Act. I've found through the years that I've had people coming to me saying that there are very few standards that apply to anybody unless they're unionized. Time after time I've phoned the employment standards people to discover that nothing can be done for individuals.

I will give one example that shows quite clearly that workers, unless they're unionized, have very few rights. When they're unionized, they sometimes don't have that many rights either. An individual was hired by a company in the Granisle area, moved up to that area and was hired at a certain salary. Within four or five months she was told by letter that her salary was reduced considerably — in fact, by almost three quarters of what her salary was originally quoted at. When contacting labour standards, this person found there was absolutely nothing she could do, and that in fact the employer was totally within his rights to reduce her salary as long as they gave it to her in writing within 30 days. For someone who has moved up to a remote community such as Granisle, put out moving expenses and changed her whole life around, to suddenly find that you're making considerably less than what you initially thought, and that there's nothing you can do about it, shows that you have no rights. So don't talk about labour standards or the Employment Standards Act, because as far as I'm concerned, the Employment Standards Act does not represent the unorganized worker and does very little to support anybody out there.

I'm pleased to see the increase in the minimum wage.

I'd like to ask some specific questions right now. First, I'd like to go to your residential.... You wear so many hats within these areas. In your press release about nonconforming hotels, where you were going

[ Page 11309 ]

to allow nonconforming hotels to convert some of their rooms over to offices or some such thing.... Since that time, I contacted the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, and DERA has written to you expressing concerns because of the impact it will have on the people who are living in some of those hotels, Even though those hotels are not necessarily the places you or I would choose to live, in many cases they are the only places available where these people can afford to live.

To have these people able to convert their hotels and maintain their liquor licences.... I think this is the big thing: they would be able to keep their liquor licences, but they would be able to get rid of their rooms and change them into offices. Obviously this is not in the best interests of the residents in that area who are looking for places to live anyway and don't have the options to go to a more expensive or nicer place. Many of these places are not kept up. If they haven't kept up their rooms in an adequate state to be rented out, do you not think it would be more sensible to just close them down instead of allowing them to convert to offices? I'd like to know whether you contacted any of those city residential associations like DERA or any of the aldermen or the mayor of Vancouver regarding your decision to allow those houses to convert over, why you made this decision and what the impact would be.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, I think it's important to realize that the legislation provides an opportunity for the owners of these establishments to make an application to the municipality to convert into a different type of liquor licence. They can't do it without municipal approval. That is the first protection — if that's what it should be called — for people being displaced.

The reason the legislation is there and is available is because many hotels — yes, you're right — have not kept up with what they once had, and they've become nonconforming hotels. The reason for that isn't simply negligence on their part; it's because the economics of their business has changed dramatically. Some of those businesses that were successful businesses at one time are perhaps not that way now, so there has been a deterioration of the facilities over the years. You've mentioned the ones in the east side of Vancouver, and we're certainly concerned about the implications that any legislation might have in that area. But that's not the only area in British Columbia. There are many communities that have non-conforming hotels. They are not particularly attractive and do not necessarily contribute greatly to the community in their present form. But they're in strategic locations, usually in the centre of a small town, and they may have a fair bit of land with them. Right now most of them have large beer parlour licences, so they have large seating and large parking lots that go with them. What we're proposing is that they will be able to redevelop and carry with them into that redevelopment a new type of urban pub that would allow them to have 125 seats. That is in almost every single case a reduction in the seats that they have now — sometimes a very substantial reduction. With that they could redevelop their properties with offices or whatever is suitable and acceptable to the community. It provides them an opportunity to do something with their properties and enhances the community.

There was a little bit of contradiction in your remarks when you talked about the hotels on the east side. You said that we shouldn't have given them this opportunity and that if they haven't done what they were supposed to do, we should close them down. Well, if we close them down, the people won't be living there either. Those people will lose their places if they're closed down. We don't think that it will apply to a lot of the places on the east side of Vancouver. Those places will continue perhaps as they are now. That's a decision that the owners and the city of Vancouver will make.

MRS. BOONE: The minister mentions legislation. I haven't seen any legislation that's coming forth on this. The only information that I've seen is a press release on this whole issue which outlines very roughly what would be done.

I would like to ask the minister right now about some of his alcohol and drug programs. I have a real concern about what's happening in the alcohol and drug programs. You mentioned the TRY program at length. I'm not sure what is going on, and a lot of people aren't too sure what's going on in alcohol and drug programs right now. When I questioned you in the Legislature a little while ago, you said that you hadn't ended the position of the medical adviser. That's not the information I have. The information I have is that you abolished the position of Dr. Graham, who was the medical adviser, and that Dr. Gilbert, who was the head of the programs at that time, resigned because he was disturbed by the elimination of the medical adviser's position. I share that concern, because the medical adviser's position is very important if you acknowledge that alcoholism is a disease, which is something that I believe.

Dr. Thornton's report showed that with the numbers going into our hospitals we're spending millions of dollars on that disease, because our professionals in the hospitals are not diagnosing the alcoholism and are instead treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the alcoholism. That shows me that we have a problem and that we need to have a closer link with the medical community. There's a real concern that if we do not have the medical adviser's position, we will lose a link with the physicians in explaining programs and in getting points across with the doctors and physicians out there — and that's very important too. It's fair to say that our medical community is not as up on the treatment of alcoholism as they should be and that few doctors are highly trained to deal with alcoholism. We need to have those physicians well trained to deal with what I consider to be one of the number one problems in British Columbia and in our health care system. A couple of years ago, if you'll remember correctly, the previous Minister of Health mentioned that one out

[ Page 11310 ]

of every four people in our hospitals is there as a result of some alcoholism, whether it be through accidents, wife abuse, or what have you.

One alcoholic unchecked and untreated can cost the community $1 million. An alcoholic who is treated substantially reduces that cost. Some of the costs have to do with income supplements, the loss of job, Social Services and Housing, UI, hospital and medical, doctors, injuries while impaired, detox, medical complications, the treatment of alcoholism and the legal system. The costs of alcoholism in our society just go on and on.

One in ten Canadians regularly uses drugs. I suppose I should be talking about drugs, because alcohol is a drug. A lot of people tend not to think that, but it is true. The B.C. drug problem is worse than in any other Canadian province. Here alcohol is the main drug. I saw a statistic that I thought was rather upsetting. It was a quarterly analysis of fatal motor vehicle accidents, from January to March 1990. Those involving alcohol increased by plus 72 percent. I think that's something that we should all be aware of. We should acknowledge that something's wrong in our society and that we're not addressing this problem correctly. Somehow we're not getting through to people out there. We've got to make that pass through.

I think some of the CounterAttack programs taking place are really good. I hope they will encourage people to drink appropriately. I am pleased to see that some TRY money went into dry grads. I think that's a step in the right direction — to try and encourage those individuals to have non-alcoholic grads in their area.

[7:45]

But I am concerned, because over the years, whether through the TRY programs or what have you, we've seen the privatization of most programs. I'd like to ask the minister if all alcohol and drug programs have been privatized now — if they've been all turned over to societies. And something that I haven't seen: is there a set of provincial standards when it comes to the level of alcohol and drug programs that should be there, or to the employees? Do we insist that all of those societies have trained professional people and that there is a level of professionalism required?

Do we have a set of standards for remuneration for those people as well? I'm very concerned that we may find ourselves trying to go for cheaper and not necessarily the best services around; that you may find societies that are very well-meaning and that have good programs or what have you, but that don't have the dollars to provide them — if they contract with the ministry to provide a service, they may pay their employees a pittance. I don't think that's in the best interests of our community either. I'd like to sit down at this time so I can get the minister's responses to those questions.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, I agree that alcohol and drug abuse is a very serious problem in society. We agree that it's a big problem.

The first question dealt with medical advice. I want to tell you that we do have a medical adviser. As a matter of fact, his name is Dr. Rae Baker, if you want to make a note of that. You mentioned other people who have been involved with the program and who are not there, and the reasons for that. I don't want to comment on it except to just tell you that what you've suggested is something that I'm not aware of.

I also want to tell you that when I answered your question concerning the medical adviser, I was correct. The issue was not whether or not we would have medical advice; the issue has been whether or not we needed a full-time physician on staff as a medical adviser. We don't think we need that in Vancouver, because we have Dr. Rae Baker, who does a considerable amount of work for us; plus we pay for a lot of other physicians' services and advice on alcohol and drug programs throughout the province. A great deal of information and advice comes from medical practitioners whom we pay for through this program.

The other issue you mentioned was whether all of the alcohol and drug programs are privatized. No, they're not all privatized.

I guess the other thing you talked about was standards — do we have somebody advising people? As I understood your question, you were suggesting that perhaps we should have somebody advising others on how they should carry out programs in the different communities. I think support is necessary and advice is good. But on the other hand, you have to recognize that the whole business of dealing with alcohol and drug problems is not exactly a proven theory in all cases. Organizations develop, through their own initiative and thought processes, some ingenious and very effective programs. I think that while we want to help organizations provide effective programs and to give them whatever support we can, at the same time we don't want to take away their ingenuity and the thought process and the freedom to be able to improve and come up with better programs and better ways of dealing with this very difficult problem. It's not an easy problem; we all know it's not easy. There are some people in the communities doing a very effective job on ideas that originated within the community.

MRS. BOONE: I don't have any quarrel with the fact that there are some communities that have some very good ideas and some very good programs and what have you. My concern is that there may be some communities out there that don't have that spark, they may not have the people there to get those programs going. That doesn't mean there's not a need in those areas.

I guess what I would like to see is a basic standard established to say that each community should have this as a minimum of service available. If communities then propose and bring about things that are better, so be it, but I have seen, and you can see throughout the province, that there are some communities that do very well — they have top-notch, inno-

[ Page 11311 ]

vative programs because they've got one or two people there who have started those things and got the spark going — and others that don't.

I have a real concern, when we've shifted over into the private societies and are depending so highly upon private societies, that there's not going to be a standard of service available for people throughout the province. I think you can see that a lot.

One of the concerns that I have is that we don't.... We've been trying to deal with this, and it's partially because of our inability to get trained people around. We have very little service available for people, particularly young people, in the northern half of this province. That's a real concern of ours. We've had a shortage of staff at various times and been unable to recruit people into those areas. I can't fault the minister; if we can't recruit people, that's not your fault. But I'd like to see the services available throughout the northern half of the province, in small communities and everywhere, so that we do have the ability to deal with alcoholism among young people. Right now we don't have it, and we have not had it for years. We're finding a lot of young people just slipping through the cracks out there.

I'd like to get some clarification on the TRY program. Is it continuing? When does it end? What's happening to the programs that were established through that?

I've had some individuals who have programs in TRY express concern to me that they may not be continued. What happens at that point? You've given communities some money, you've given them a boost, you've given them some incentive and you've got them going on some good programs. What happens when the TRY program money is finished? What happens to the societies and groups that have these programs already going? How are they going to be sustained?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think I can provide some comfort to the member by telling her that we very definitely do have standards for all alcohol and drug programs. Any agency delivering the program has to provide a standard of service. It's a measured standard, and if they don't live up to that, they're not in compliance with their contract. That's a part of it.

I share with you the concern that the service be available to all parts of the province. That's certainly our wish, and we do all we can to make sure it is happening.

Your third question was about the continuation of the TRY program. I don't think that anyone out in the communities who is providing an effective service dealing with this problem has any concern. The current program, as it was announced, comes to an end at the end of the fiscal year, but at this time my advisory committee is meeting and looking at the situation and will be coming forward with recommendations soon for the continuation and what will happen after the end of this year. I think I can safely say to you that we're not looking to end the program; we're looking at how we might improve it and do a still better job with it.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to canvass with the minister an issue that I have both spoken to him and written to him about: the alcohol and drug program office in Prince Rupert. The local employers and unions have done an excellent job of forming an employee assistance program which is funded by those groups and which has a staff in Prince Rupert. They very quickly developed, from the time that the office was opened, a client list in excess of 300, very clearly demonstrating that the problem existed there in the community and actually beyond Prince Rupert, because employers in the region, in the Queen Charlottes, were also involved with the program

Having set up this office and established this rather extensive client base, they ran into some severe difficulties in terms of the operation of the alcohol and drug program office in Prince Rupert. Without going into a great deal of detail, it's fair to say that the people who were in the office were not really fulfilling the requirements of the office. I'll leave it at that. That's been borne out by fairly impartial, objective viewpoints expressed both within and without your ministry. The difficulty arose, however, because under the rules, the employee assistance program would refer their clients to the alcohol and drug program. Because of this difficulty in the office, those referrals were not being made.

Subsequently, the people in question — the problem people, if I can put it that way — left that office. One new person has been added. The second vacancy has not been filled; in fact, the decision was made, I understand, by your ministry to allocate that position to Terrace instead of filling that second vacancy in Prince Rupert. I've discussed this with all the people involved — some of the major companies like Repap and Skeena Cellulose, the employee groups, people in the alcohol and drug program — and I'm satisfied that were the Prince Rupert office to be fully staffed, the client base is there to justify that. I've been advised that were the Prince Rupert office to be fully staffed with the two counsellors, the caseload would be higher than in the Terrace office. It's disturbing that the ministry is justifying the transfer of the position from Terrace to Prince Rupert on the basis that there weren't that many referrals to Prince Rupert. Clearly that's the case, but there are overriding reasons why that was the case.

As I said, I had talked to you about it and written to you about it. Unfortunately we never got another opportunity to talk about it outside this House. It does appear to me that the wisest course of action would be to reallocate, if you like, that second staff position back into the Prince Rupert office to provide the kind of support that's required in the alcohol and drug program office in Prince Rupert and to provide the kind of service that is required given the established client base I have just indicated.

Perhaps the minister might comment on the specific case and whether or not consideration has been given or will be given to the recommendations I've outlined: in other words, that we staff the Prince Rupert office fully.

[8:00]

[ Page 11312 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I am aware of the situation you are talking about in Prince Rupert. I was reviewing that not very long ago. The information I have is that the out-patient service in Prince Rupert is being underutilized. As a matter of fact, the person working there has expressed some concern and some unhappiness at the low level of work that's there to do. By contrast, the office in Terrace is very busy. The worker was sent to Terrace because that's — as far as the information we have — where the heavy demand is. My understanding is that Terrace is in need of the additional help because of the workload there and that Prince Rupert is getting along fine with the present staffing.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that's not the case. It's not that I want to criticize what the minister has to say; I'm satisfied on an objective and impartial basis that that's not the case. Clearly the people who occupied the positions in Prince Rupert previously were not performing their jobs. There were statements made — and I'm not going to attribute any names to this — that, for example, people referred from the employment assistance program to the ADP were advised by one of those counsellors that it was okay to drink; you could drink on the weekends. There was some suggestion that you could use other means or other chemicals to satisfy your craving for alcohol. Clearly, Mr. Minister, those people were not offering advice that you or your ministry would support. As a result of that failure in the ADP office in Prince Rupert, the employee assistance program refused to refer clients to that office, with every justification.

You now have one new person in Prince Rupert. I've talked to the person, who does not have a long history in this field of work. I'm not criticizing that person; I believe they will work to the best of their ability in trying to provide the kind of programs and assistance that is required. But they clearly need support.

The Prince Rupert office caseload was down for the reasons I've outlined; they are artificial reasons. Given that, it would seem to me that in terms of meeting the objectives of your ministry, the proper course of action would be to put a qualified person into the Prince Rupert office and allow that function to build up and run smoothly with the client base that I've indicated.

Again, from talking to officials both in Terrace and Prince Rupert, it's my understanding that the need is there and that very quickly, if that office was functioning smoothly with the required personnel, those statistics would be right back up to where they should be.

I hope the minister would accept my explanation. I certainly can find and recommend lots of other people besides myself to verify the circumstances which I've outlined. Given that, I would like the minister to comment on that or indicate that he's prepared to review the situation.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You're from Prince Rupert, and obviously you know the situation there better than I know it. If you have concerns about the way the program is working in Prince Rupert, then I'd be happy to have my staff look into it, go over it with you and come to some kind of an understanding of the situation. If changes are needed in Prince Rupert, then we would certainly look at that.

Our purpose is to provide proper service in each community, and we want to be sure that Prince Rupert is adequately served too. If you have concerns about it, I'd like to talk to you about that.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's offer to discuss this issue with officials. I would point out that I did encompass all of the arguments that I'm currently making in the form of a letter not that long ago. I would hate to think that I'd go around in circles — in other words, make the same arguments again and have the same results. Fair enough. The minister is saying that officials are prepared to listen to those arguments and look at the situation. I'll accept it at that, and I will endeavour as quickly as possible to contact them.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to talk a little more about the TRY program and also about the changes that I think are happening within the ministry. I mentioned the abolishment of the full-time.... I guess that's the difference between you and I. I talk about a full-time staff medical adviser, and you obviously have somebody on a retainer who you say is the medical adviser for the ministry now. Therefore you say that position has not been abolished.

In May of this year a legislative report came down from Public Affairs International Ltd., a company that deals with the government in many areas. They talk about a problem of morale within the branch being very low, and it has to do with the resignation of the alcohol and drug program's director, David Gilbert, and the near-simultaneous termination of the contract of medical adviser Doug Graham.

The minister indicated that he wasn’t aware of the situation, but it indicates that it has pushed the morale to an all-time low within the branch. I've heard rumours and grumblings from various people out in the field about what's happening in the ministry.

There's concern that the TRY budget will have a reduced emphasis on the preventive services in order to increase treatment services. Some people are saying that this is because the TRY campaign has been so successful in getting people to seek treatment, therefore they need treatment. But obviously you can't suddenly turn around and ignore the preventive end of things as well.

The same report indicates that a senior research officer with the alcohol and drug programs claims that the reduced emphasis on preventive services is a natural consequence of the three-year TRY program. She explained that it was the goal of the community action and awareness program to provide seed money during the first two years of the TRY cam-

[ Page 11313 ]

paign to stimulate community involvement in the prevention process through the provision of one-time grants to local organizations. With the TRY program now in its final year, the government believes that these local organizations should take on much of the preventive work without reliance on government funding.

That's the question I have. You indicated that you were reviewing this whole program and looking at putting some money into it. Can the minister assure me that it is not his goal to shift the burden onto the communities to take up the load the TRY program originally had?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can assure the member that I have never participated in any discussion with anyone that has suggested that we were going to move the burden of funding the TRY program to the communities. That certainly is not my intention, and I don't believe it's anyone else's.

I also want to tell you that I strongly disagree with the comments concerning the morale of the people who work in the alcohol and drug programs. They do a very good job, and I think they're quite enthusiastic about their job. The people I've met and talked to have been enthusiastic and felt that their work was meaningful and that they were being of service to society. I don't think there's a problem there.

I don't want to talk about the issue you bring up about the previous director, because I don't think we should be talking about individuals' private affairs in the Legislature. That's a personal matter and should not be discussed here, although I have every compliment for the gentleman who did the job. He did a good job; he was a good fellow. I don't think the circumstances of his leaving were related to what you're talking about at all. But I'm not going to debate the issue with you further.

MRS. BOONE: Although I may have used the gentleman's name, my concern was about the full-time medical adviser's position, not about the specific person, and about the previous executive director's resignation as a result of that position — not the man but the position — being terminated.

I'd like to ask some questions on the program. The liquor policy review of 1987 recommended that further funding for alcoholism treatment and prevention be raised through the sale of liquor. That was recommendation No. 11. The government then imposed a 10 percent sales tax in response and for the first time introduced a sales tax on draft beer. This money went into consolidated revenue. Can the minister inform the House how much money has been raised through the 10 percent on draft beer in the last year?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On the other comment concerning the medical adviser, I just want to clarify one point. There seemed to be a suggestion that we had made a major change because now we had a medical adviser on contract. The previous medical adviser was not an employee either but was on contract to the ministry. We do not have anyone other than medical people making medical decisions. But we are responsible to the taxpayers; we have to have some concern how we spend the money. We really question whether it's appropriate to have a physician giving us advice on things that have nothing whatsoever to do with his profession. For all things that have to do with the medical profession, we seek and act on medical advice. I want that part to be very clear.

The other question was about how much money has been raised on draft beer, etc. The appropriate person to ask is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). That is the responsibility of his ministry and not mine.

MRS. BOONE: I can't find the information broken down anywhere, and his budget has already gone.

The budget does show an increase of $26 million in liquor income over last year, yet prevention and treatment go up $52,000. Where did the extra money go, and what happened to the recommendation from the policy review committee that moneys from increased alcohol prices go into prevention?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know exactly where every dollar went, but I suspect that some of it has gone into health care; some of it will probably be going to doctors in the near future; some is going into highways; a lot of it is going into education; a lot of it is going into the environment. It's going into a lot of services for people. As you well know, every dollar raised through liquor sales doesn't come back to us to spend on these programs. We have other fiscal responsibilities as well, and they have to be funded.

[8:15]

MRS. BOONE: As we've already shown, our health budget, our A-G budget and our social services budget could be reduced considerably if we dealt with the alcohol problem. Surely it would be more sensible to put that money into alcohol and drug programs rather than only $52,000; to try to deal with those problems before they get into the system and cost us $1 million, which is what one alcoholic can cost you right now — a million bucks. It's the million-dollar disease. I would really encourage the minister to go in and fight for those dollars, because that's what that money is supposed to be going into. That was the recommendation of alcohol and drug programs.

I'd like to talk a little about the Serving It Right program. That program, as I stated earlier, came about with the full support of various people in the industry. They felt very strongly that it was something they required and that it was supported. As I stated earlier, I think it was a good program that seems to have not gotten off the ground. It has not performed and has not done well; it has gone wrong. It was originally suggested that it be given through the colleges and the Knowledge Network. I earlier said Open Learning. It wasn't Open Learning; it was the Knowledge Network. Yet what we've often seen is

[ Page 11314 ]

individuals giving this program who have no connection with the industry whatsoever. I have been given accounts by people who have taken the program and who say that they know more about the program than the individuals giving it; that in many cases the individuals who've been out there training are cooks who have never served beer in their life. Somehow or other this program seems to have gotten off to the wrong start.

It initially started with demanding that people in the outlying regions.... I had a bunch of fishing camps and all kinds of people phoning me and telling me that they were unable to get their people to these courses, and they were going to have to transport them all over the place. I think you tried to work that out, but it appears that there was a real problem in the delivery of this service. It has not happened the way it should have happened.

I'd like to ask the minister how much money this program has cost the government to date. How much money has been paid? Which advertising firm did you use? What did they do in terms of work? I believe that the advertising firm you used was somebody by the name of McKim. How many people were employed by the ministry to administer the program? Can the minister advise the House of their salaries and their benefits? Maybe you can't do that. Can you tell us how many individuals were hired to give this program? As I stated, you had people out there that I've had.... You know, hotel owners have come to me and said: "I know more about the program than these guys out there teaching it." That's totally inappropriate. It's unfortunate, because this program has the full support of everybody, and somehow it seems to have gone off the track. Can the minister please give us some information about it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, let me say that I wouldn't doubt at all that there would be people taking the program who would know more about it than the people teaching it. I think that would be bound to happen, because some people who have taken that program have been in that business a lifetime. They have a great many years of experience. They've been in the business; they've been there themselves. They've had firsthand experience, so obviously they would know a great deal about it.

You asked about the employees. I can't tell you very much, because government hasn't done this program. It was done in cooperation with the industry. A committee of industry sat down with government to develop the program at the encouragement of industry, because industry agreed that it was a good program to have. It is a good program. Admittedly there have been some problems in the start-up, in getting the program underway. People had concepts about how the program might work. Some things, when they put them into practice, were really not quite appropriate. For instance, originally it was suggested that everyone who worked in a restaurant would have to take the Serving It Right program.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We looked at that. We have restaurants in the province that may sell a fair amount of alcohol, but we have other restaurants 1 percent of whose sales is alcohol. I know several such restaurants out in my constituency, and they may have 20 or 30 people who work in that restaurant, many of whom will never carry one glass of wine or one drink in a day. For them to have to train all of these people for the Serving It Right program when the very most they would ever serve anybody is one glass of wine, if that, seems a little ridiculous.

Of course, people from across the province protested and said: "Is that appropriate?" So we exempted restaurants. However, there are some restaurants that compete, almost, with pubs for the amount of alcohol they serve. It is at the discretion of the general manager whether or not a restaurant will have their servers take this particular course.

So there were other problems in getting the program underway, but let's not detract from the intent and purpose of the program, which is to try to bring responsibility into the serving of alcohol. First of all, there are benefits to the establishment, to the licensee, to do it this way, because there is a liability, whether they recognize it or not, in misappropriating the use of alcohol. Also, hopefully we will save lives and difficulties for many people as a result of their having too much to drink and then getting in a car and going home when they shouldn't be in that position at all.

The program is well-intended. It has had some problems — I'm the first to admit that — but we are overcoming them, and it is getting better and better. It will be a program that I'm satisfied will serve very well in the long term. People will be spared injuries and families will be spared having an accident that will cause the death of a family member. There will be many benefits as a result of this program.

You asked about the cost. Let me tell you that the cost the government has had in it is about $500,000. That was for the development of the program in the first place, to get the thing underway. Since that time, the program is self-supporting.

MR. LOVICK: I'd like to pursue a couple of questions on precisely the same subject. Let me start by simply saying that I'm sure all of us on this side of the House, Mr. Minister, accept that the objectives of the program are laudable. Nobody denies that, and we are indeed supportive of the objectives.

The question, however, has to do with whether the program was in any way well handled or well planned in the beginning or whether it has in fact been a bit of a financial and administrative embarrassment. I suspect the latter. Mr. Minister, you made reference very briefly to the cost of some half a million dollars. Is it not the case that this program was to be imminently self-supporting and that the calculations in terms of cost were based on significantly larger numbers of people taking the course, i.e. those individuals working in restaurants? What has happened subsequently is that a number of people who were originally to have taken the course are

[ Page 11315 ]

now, for the reasons you outlined, no longer taking it. Therefore we the taxpayers are going to be stuck with those costs that weren't there in the first place. Is that not the case?

HON. MR JACOBSEN: No, I'm not sure that is the case. There could be some costs involved. I can't categorically say that there will not be, but I don't think so at this particular time. I think that you're quite correct in that it was anticipated to include a larger number of people; that was sort of built into it. I guess the cost of developing the program on a per-person basis is higher as a result of less people taking it, so you could say that that was an additional expense to us. But the course presumably will be administered in such a way that there will be a complement of people there sufficient to meet the needs. They won't have all the people they would have had had they been going to service the people in restaurants as well. Hopefully that will be handled in such a way as to not add a cost to government.

For my part, I can quite honestly tell you that we've had many discussions about the program. But I'm not embarrassed about it, because it's a new adventure and a new initiative. It's something that is needed in British Columbia and in every place where alcohol is served publicly, but we have had the foresight of doing something about it. As a matter of fact, we've had a lot of interest from other jurisdictions about this very program that is being developed in British Columbia, because they think they might like to have something similar in their areas.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the minister's candour and his willingness to admit that not everything has proceeded precisely as it was originally envisaged. I wonder if he can tell me when the decision to change the program was made. In other words, when did we finally figure out that perhaps large numbers of people, on whose attendance the program was originally predicated, did not have to take the course for the very obvious reasons that the minister pointed out a few minutes ago? I guess my question, put more bluntly, is: how did it happen that we couldn't figure that out in advance of the program, before spending that money — that certain people didn't have to take the program in the first place? Why did we have to waste money, if I can put it rather indelicately? Can the minister answer that for me?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't subscribe to the logic that you're using that we wasted money as a result of these extra people not taking the program, because we would have had to spend what we spent to develop the program if we wanted to have a program at all. We may have anticipated that there would be more people taking it, but even if we had known at the outset, we would still have had to make the decision: should we make this initial investment to establish this program in British Columbia or should we not? I think that the consensus from people who really are concerned about the matter would be yes, we should develop it — and we did. I have no apologies for that, despite the fact that it's not precisely the way it was originally intended. It's still an effective and good program, and I think better as a result — more realistic.

You asked how the calculation was made, if it was made in error. Why did they include the people formerly in the program, all the people working in restaurants? Well, I guess that happens very easily when you're starting to develop something. You think about who might subscribe to it; who would be the ideal? I think it would be a good thing if all the restaurant people took it. Many of them may come in and take the program. But you see, they don't handle enough alcoholic beverages for us to go and say to them: "You must, by law, take that program." We could hardly justify that. But the program is available, and maybe some of them will come forward. I suspect they will.

MR. LOVICK: Just one more brief question to the minister. The minister made reference a moment ago, in answer to a question from my colleague from Prince George, to the program being self-supporting — as I think was originally envisaged, if I understand it correctly. After the start-up costs, it would be self-supporting. If we are dealing with significantly fewer people, will there not be an increased cost to the individuals and the associations that are still required to take the program? In other words, those people will now have to buy into the program by paying significantly more money than they were originally faced with having to spend. Is that the case? And if so, could you tell us roughly how much more, and whether that might have a negative effect on the program, insofar as people will say: "We thought it was going to cost us a hundred bucks; now it's going to cost us double. So to heck with it, we'll no longer support it." Would the minister like to answer that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, you see, I'm so anxious to answer that I'm on my feet way ahead of time.

That is not the case. There is no increase in cost for the course. As a matter of fact, there has been considerable effort made to present the course more efficiently, and if anything, there might be just a little reduction —  that being an encouragement too, and an incentive for more people to get involved.

[8:30]

MRS. BOONE: I understood — and perhaps the minister can clarify this for me — that it was required in the act, through an amendment, that this program be taken by everybody, including restaurant people. Can the minister advise me if that is correct, if there was an amendment to the act, and if that amendment took place? I've got the amendment as B7138. And how do you deal with the fact that you've now exempted these people from it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Very simply, the changes were made through the regulations. They were made

[ Page 11316 ]

approximately two or three months ago — somewhere in that area.

MRS. BOONE: I thought you could change regulations, but I didn't think you could change an act through regulations. Perhaps I'm wrong. I thought you could alter the regulations all you wanted, but if you were going to change an act, you'd have to bring the changes back to the Legislature. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We're getting very technical, and I have to wait for the answers now. Just so I get this exactly right: no change was made to the act; the act allowed us to proceed through regulations.

MRS. BOONE: This minister is so anxious that he doesn't want to sit down at all.

You indicated that it was not the ministry hiring people or making the decisions as to who gave the course, and yet it is a ministry budget — there is $500,000 there. Who approves the budget that you have? Who approves the salaries? Who hires the people? If it's ministry money that's out there, who does all of these things if the ministry is not involved in any of them?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The situation is that there's an organization made up of people within the hospitality industry. Yes, we have a contract with them that they will deliver the program. The money that they spend is compensated for by the payment that people make to take the course. The course fee is $65 for licensees and $38 for servers. As these people take the course, they pay the cost of the course.

The cost for government was that the government agreed — and this was before my time — that it would provide funding to develop the course because there was no course. It's a new thing. There was no place to draw from, so they had to develop a course in order to start the program. Government provided the funding to develop that course. Since then, the ongoing costs of delivering the service are to be paid for by the fees that are charged.

MRS. BOONE: I also have some concerns about the exemption of the restaurants from this program The minister may make a valid point in terms of some restaurants, but the reality is that there are many restaurants which serve a lot of alcohol. I'm not just talking about the ones that are semi-pubs, which almost operate as pubs; I'm talking about ones where there is wine, beer, aperitifs — all of those things. There's a lot of booze sold through restaurants.

More apt to have difficulty in judgment, I would think, are those less used to dealing with the serving of alcohol. Does it not seem natural, then, if there are restaurants with people who are not used to serving alcohol, that those are the ones who should be taking the course? They are the ones who would be less apt to recognize the symptoms of somebody who has overindulged, or to understand how to deal with somebody who obviously shouldn't be going out driving. Does it not make sense that those are the people who need the experience and who need to take the course?

If people are serving alcohol, it doesn't really matter whether it's served in a bar, pub, beer parlour, lounge or restaurant. It's all alcohol that's being served, and the people who are serving should be given the advantage of having that course so that they understand all the ins and outs of serving it. It seems a little strange to me to make an exemption for one segment and say that those people can serve alcohol and don't have to take this course. The reality to me is that they may be the ones who should have that course — more so than the people who are dealing with it on a day-to-day basis.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, unlike the member, I can't afford to go to those restaurants, so I don't know what they do there. Isn't it interesting that a few minutes ago another member criticized — or sort of criticized — the people who set up the program in the first place, because he said they made an error in judgment as to the number of people who would take the course. They included restaurateurs when perhaps they shouldn't have. Now, of course, you're demonstrating how very easy it was for the people designing the course in the first place to include everyone who worked in a restaurant.

I can't say to you that there would never be anyone who works in a restaurant who hasn't taken this course who might have benefited from having had it. I'm saying to you that there isn't enough alcohol service done by these people on a regular basis to be able to come along and say that they have to have taken the course.

I mentioned before that not all restaurants are exempt. There are restaurants that will have to have their servers take the course. We have an advantage in the ministry in that we know what percentage of the sales of a restaurant happens to be in alcoholic beverages, so we know the big sellers. The general manager has the option, through the legislation, to be able to go in and demand that those people who are selling larger volumes take the course.

Admittedly there might be a restaurant that usually doesn't sell very much alcohol, and you could hardly justify that everybody working for that restaurant has to take this course. One of those employees might have a situation where he serves alcohol to someone to the extent that it would have been good for him to know the information. I don't deny that. But that's not a regular thing, and that's not a situation that we could base the legislation on. For other drinking establishments where we know the prime purpose is to use alcohol, yes, no question.

MRS. BOONE: In his opening remarks the minister spoke about environmental procedures being taken over by the ministry. That's good; I'm glad to see that.

However, I want to talk a little bit about returns. I guess you could talk about deposit versus blue box. I know that the industry has actually been approach-

[ Page 11317 ]

ing the government and trying to get the deposit on cans increased to ten cents, because right now there's a 97 percent return on bottles, a 75 percent return on cans and a 45 percent return on blue boxes.

Obviously if we're serious about recycling and returning our bottles, cans and what-have-you, then we should be looking at trying to introduce some means to promote that practice. The industry has made a very good case for increasing that deposit to ten cents, bringing it in line with the bottles. The industry in that case assumes the responsibility for the collecting of the ten cents for the handling of the cans once they are collected. This is compared to the blue box where the blue box then goes into the control of the municipality or whoever is doing those things, and they are then responsible for dealing with those cans.

The argument is very strong in terms of increasing that deposit so that we will get those returns and won't have those things thrown out with the garbage. We can then start into serious recycling and developing a sound environmental policy with the containers.

I understand that there was a proposal from the Ministry of Environment where it looked like this type of deposit system was actually going to happen. It was going to go beyond just the cans and be on a lot more things. Somehow that got kiboshed along the way. I'd like to know what the minister feels about the ten-cent deposit, and if there's any move in that direction. What happened to the proposal that was coming forth a few months ago from the Ministry of Environment on that whole question?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The proposal hasn't been kiboshed, as you said. It is still something that is being actively considered by the ministry. There is a little bit of a difference in the return of bottles and cans. One of the differences is quite obviously that cans are taken to places where people don't lug bottles. Bottles tend to be kept at home. But people on picnics and out in different places take cans because they don't want to be bothered with bringing them back.

People are getting more environmentally conscious, and that's going to help. We're prepared to do whatever we need to do to increase the returns. If it's a question of raising the price, we can do that. There might be other ways of doing it too.

The liquor distribution branch is very keen on this business of being environmentally clean. I've spent some time with the people there. I've heard them spending a lot of time talking about how they plan to recycle the little plastic tabs that hold the six-can cases together. It's just a little plastic strip, and they're talking about how they might recycle them so it doesn't become an environmental issue. They've done a first-class job. They're recognized all over as having the best return of any producer of beverages.

MRS. BOONE: Then am I correct in assuming that the minister is reviewing an increase of the deposit to ten cents on the cans?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's a possibility. The staff in this ministry, along with the people in Environment, are certainly considering the problem. When a decision is made on what needs to be done in order to do the job effectively, we'll take that action.

[8:45]

MRS. BOONE: I've written to the minister, and I have not received any reply from him about the move from the U.S. This may cross into the Ministry of International Business or what have you, but I think the ministry should be involved in this with regard to the removal of the interprovincial barriers when it comes to the beer industry. There's a move by the U.S. to remove those. The implications to the industry here are very severe. As far as I'm concerned, we could see the demise of a lot of our smaller breweries if that was to take place. Can the minister advise me on what action this ministry is taking to represent the interests of British Columbia at the federal level?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I'd be happy to do that. As you state, there's a threat or a challenge to the brewing industry in this province. But that's not unusual, because the brewing industry in the other provinces is not feeling particularly secure. But British Columbia is doing reasonably well in that regard, although we have concerns about the industry. We are doing what we can to protect the industry. You can understand that we have to work within some parameters. We have other people outside our boundaries who have rights and can appeal our decisions and so on. We have to work very carefully.

The job of doing that is really with another ministry, not this one. For our part, we have a dialogue with the brewing industry in this province, and we don't want to lose it. That's to not be a supporter of a great consumption of alcohol in the province. But if beer is going to be sold in British Columbia, we'd like to see some of it produced in British Columbia, because we are capable of producing as good a quality of product as anywhere. It provides the jobs and the benefit to our society to offset some of the problems we have to live with as a result of alcohol use in the province. We don't want to lose that industry in the province, and we're doing everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen.

MRS. BOONE: On the same line, there have been some suggestions by people that some of the American companies are virtually dumping some of their products in British Columbia. That's resulting in prices that our industry can't meet. In addition, they have some advantages that our industry doesn't have. In our province, our breweries must distribute their own alcohol and all of their own products throughout the province. Whereas when products are imported from the U.S., they are brought into our province, and the province then assumes the cost of distribution. That cost is taken up.

There have also been some suggestions that we could deal with this problem if we were to implement a floor price for beer, which would then mean

[ Page 11318 ]

the U.S. would not be able to charge below that price. That would be a fair, competitive price that would take into consideration the cost involved and the distribution which currently the government is taking up. It would make it so that our own breweries would then be competitive with the U.S. breweries. Has the minister considered the implementation of a floor price for beer?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have a lot of discussions which revolve around a number of things that might be done to help the industry within the province. I don't want to put greater emphasis on one over another, but all the things the member talks about I have heard before. I'm not saying that they are at any particular point at this time, except that from the comments you make, you appear to be interested in the brewing industry in this province. So if we have to bring in changes — whatever they may be — directed at protecting the interests of the brewing industry, I would expect that you and your members will give us your full support in doing that for the betterment of the industry in this province.

MR. MILLER: I've got three items I wanted to canvass with the minister. I've done one, and another one is aluminium siding, but I think I'll save that one I could give a brief review of the movie Tin Men, which really was quite hilarious, but I have some constituents, unfortunately, who were the victims, if you like, of some tin men and are having a great deal of difficulty finding redress.

I actually wanted to ask the minister about the desire to have a new liquor store in Prince Rupert. I hope that this is not inconsistent with my previous comments with the respect to the matter I raised regarding the alcohol and drug program. Clearly, for a community that size, it is long past the time for a new outlet, one in keeping with the population, the sales level and the cosmopolitan nature of the community in which I live.

I recall that a number of years ago the ministry actually advertised for additional space. Presumably there were no takers.

It is overdue. The community is expanding. There are some new consumer outlets being built. I would ask the minister whether or not it has been considered, and I would be happy to hear him announce that a new, modern store, providing all of the conveniences of some of the stores I see in the lower mainland and here in Victoria, will indeed be built in Prince Rupert to provide service to people in the community.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member's concerns are on the record, so he has achieved that.

When I spoke the last time concerning Prince Rupert, I volunteered to have dialogue between the member and our ministry with regard to looking at that problem. This one I'm not offering that same kind of assurance on. We have people in the ministry whose business it is to look after the liquor outlets, and we depend on them to come forward and make the recommendations. I'm sure they are looking at Prince Rupert, as they are looking at many other areas in the province, for what has to be there to serve the public properly.

MR. MILLER: Well, I know a cosy little place we could talk about it.

Are none of the minister's staff aware if there's been any discussion or planning about that? You can't advise me any further? I realize there must be a process to make those decisions, and I realize that I'm raising it here because it's a proper forum to raise it in. The minister can't offer me any further advice with respect to that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I'm sorry, I can't offer any further advice. I've heard your concerns, and they're in the record now. We'll take a look at those concerns, but beyond that I can't offer anything.

MRS. BOONE: In February I wrote to the minister, and you said at that time that you were developing new regulations to clarify and control recreation centre licensing. At that time you said that you would have the final recommendations ready by March 9, 1990. Specifically it has to do with recreation centres that were almost acting as pubs and some controls on those. Have you finished those regulations? Have you finished the recommendations, and what are they?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can only comment at this time that it is still under consideration and has been discussed with the advisory committee. Presumably sometime in the future we'll have a recommendation, but at this time it's still under discussion.

MRS. BOONE: It has been a long time, Mr. Minister. I wrote to you in February and you told me you'd have some recommendations next month, which was March. All people were asking for at that time was that the law be applied; that those recreation centres not operating within their proper licence not be allowed to do so. Why is it taking so long to figure out whether you're going to make these recreation centres conform to the law, or if you're going to allow them to continue not to conform?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, you appreciate that to be thorough does take time, and we certainly want to be thorough about it. I understand that the ones that have licences do comply with the rules. But that issue is being looked at by the advisory committee.

MRS. BOONE: It's unfortunate, because I have a letter from August 2, 1989 — the previous minister, obviously — which says: "It was never intended to allow recreation centres to operate as pubs and lounges in direct competition with the hospitality industry for the general beverage alcohol market. I do not believe this is now occurring on a widespread basis." However, there are specific instances of this happening, such as the example raised in my letter,

[ Page 11319 ]

and I'm not going to go into that. It says that at that time the liquor control and licensing branch had been reviewing this matter for some time. That's just about a whole year. When I wrote to you in February, you told me at that time: "I expect to have recommendations shortly." Now you're telling me that you're still reviewing this. It is really a little ridiculous that, over a whole year, we can't get some recommendation or some specific policy with regard to dealing with recreation centres and their use of alcohol. Will the minister not admit that that's a little outrageous?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have to be honest with you, member. Except for your letter dealing with this matter — and I don't recall that at this time; undoubtedly the letter was there, but there have been a few since, as you can appreciate — it is not something that has been brought to my attention. It's not something that I'm aware has been a problem. I don't, in fact, remember being in any great discussion where there was some urgency about this particular issue. Perhaps there is, and that's something I'll discuss with the staff afterwards, to find out just where this stands and what is happening and what is the problem. But it's not something I would recognize as a major problem.

MRS. BOONE: There was a period of time.... I think some people have just given up trying to get an answer from them. I know that I was certainly being harassed quite heavily by some individuals about a particular company that was obviously breaking the law and that they couldn't get to conform. I hope that now the minister has been reminded, he will take this under advisement and then will get back to me at some time in the near future regarding this issue.

I also wrote to the minister not too long ago requesting that more women be appointed to boards. I'm pleased to see that you did appoint a woman as the chair of the appeal board, and I'm certainly happy to see that. But that's one little fight there in that group of male dominance.

Talk about lights, and the lights go down here.

I know the minister has written saying that he is going to be looking at those things, but I would like to see the minister seriously consider making it a priority to find qualified women. As I stated to you, if you do not know of qualified women, please contact me, contact my colleague, contact our critic for women's affairs, contact your own women's minister. I'm sure that we will all be happy to give you lists of qualified women who would be more than happy to serve on these boards. As we're 50 percent of the population, it's very important that we also be represented in 50 percent of the membership of these boards — not just on your board, but on all the other boards that are out there as well.

[9:00]

I want to shift a little over to your Consumer Services heading. I don't know whether you have actually had any inquiries on this, but this was brought to my attention. I'm not sure whether you have a mandate or whether it's something you could investigate within your mandate. It has to do with a company in town called Opportunity Handicap. This company exists within British Columbia, and it's called New Opportunity Handicap. It's also in other jurisdictions; in Manitoba it exists as Opportunity Handicap.

There was some query about whether these people could use the name, and how they were using the name, because this company says that they employ handicapped people, which they do. They are not a non-profit organization. They hire handicapped people to sell light-bulbs. These people are paid on a piecemeal basis. They say that they hire anybody who is handicapped. They hire people with alcohol problems — they consider that a handicap and not necessarily somebody termed "handicapped" by the Ministry of Social Services.

In their selling process, they say: "This is Opportunity Handicapped. We are selling five-year-guaranteed light-bulbs," etc. People have brought this to my attention. The concern is that by using the name Opportunity Handicapped, they are implying this is funding for some non-profit organization for the handicapped. They are merely a company that chooses to hire handicapped people. They are not being treated any differently than any employees.... They are only employees of this company.

Is there any way this company can be investigated to find out if their use of this name and the way they are doing this is not an abuse of the term "handicapped" by implying they are doing something for the handicapped person? They are not a non-profit organization. We all get phone calls from different non-profit groups. If people got called by this group, they would think the money was going specifically to the handicapped person, and it's not; it's just a company.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not aware of the situation. As a matter of fact, I have to tell you I have not heard of the situation you are describing here. I can't comment any further on it, except that we will try to get some information on it and find out what's happening in that regard.

MRS. BOONE: I'll send you the information I have on this. As I have said, some people have brought this to my attention. It appears to me that the Ministry of Consumer Services should be made aware of this, and that it's not quite proper. I will give you the information I have, and I'll send it over to your office within this week.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend just a few minutes on the issue of residential tenancy in the province of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could tell me how he considers it to be fair that he does a rent review for one apartment in Victoria — considers it politically expedient to do that — but on the same day he says rent review for anybody else is dangerous.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, my answer is that I didn't do rent review for anyone. As I explained quite thoroughly before, I happened to talk

[ Page 11320 ]

to a landlord. I've talked to numerous landlords and to numerous tenants. I think it's my responsibility to do that as minister, so that I can understand firsthand what the situation is in the rental market.

As a result of my discussions that day with a landlord and seeking information from him, the decision was made to reduce the rents. I don't know if you could say that I had started a rent review or rent control process, as the member suggests. What I was doing was seeking information. As a result of that, the landlord dropped the price of his rent.

I want to tell you — it's very important to this whole argument and to this whole discussion — why he reduced his rent. He did so because, in his discussions with me and as I asked him questions, he was getting the idea of what my views were. I think he felt that the rent reviews — as you wish to call them, because you have a distaste for rent controls, and I can well understand that.... Rent reviews are the same thing, but they have a different name now. We can go into that in detail, which I'd be happy to do if you want to. I'll prove myself right on that one, because we've had a fair bit of discussion on it.

The reason he was raising his rents as much as he did was that he wanted to make some renovations to his building, and he was unsure about what the future would hold as to allowing him to increase his rents to compensate for the expenses he was putting into the building. Because there was so much discussion about rent controls — by that very member, I might add, because it was in Victoria — he decided he would put up the rents and then do his renovations. Well, that wasn't quite fair, and I told him I didn't think it was. I told him that I didn't think there was any basis for all his talk about rent controls or rent review — or whatever you call it; it's all the same. As a result of that, he reduced his rent.

I have had many landlords tell me that they were concerned about the implications of rent controls being imposed upon them, and they wanted to get their rents up before that happened. I was trying to discourage that kind of talk because it was costing tenants money. The people who sit opposite and the member who sits opposite, who are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of tenants, were going forward with that conversation, building that threat and causing rents to be increased for the very people they claimed to be helping. I think you should get off that kick, because it's not healthy for the tenants.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we've heard that argument for 15 or 20 years. The minister thought he saw an opportunity to score a few political points. In this chamber — I think it was on opening day or the next day — he proudly announced that he had done a rent review. He had talked to the landlord. The landlord, who was obviously a good friend of the government, said: "Oh yes, I'll reduce my rents." The minister stated publicly that he thought the rent increase was far too high, and that's on record.

I want to know what was too high about the rent increase in that instance. Why did you interfere? You don't believe in interfering or in talking about these things. Yet in this case — I was sitting over there at the time — you thought you could make some political Brownie points. You were prepared to use that example, yet you abandoned a million other tenants you wouldn't give the opportunity to. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister.

You said you thought they were unfair; you thought those increases weren't warranted. That's the case we're making. We're not in favour of rent controls. We're in favour of a process whereby there's a legal dialogue between a landlord and a tenant when there's a rent increase. In our bill it says if you go beyond the CPI, you've got to give some bona fide reasons. Our legislation lays out how you can go beyond the CPI. That's fairness, justice and equality, not rent control.

You did it, but then you stepped away and said: "Well, I scored my political Brownie points. I tried to embarrass the member for Victoria." But it backfired on you, because you did a rent review but said to the other million tenants in the province: "Well, it's too dangerous for you." You had a backroom deal with a Socred landlord. You made a little arrangement. You said it was an unfair rent increase, and you collectively rolled it back to 15 percent, because you thought it was unfair. You said that publicly. Mr. Minister, I can give you umpteen very good cases that are unfair. You can't play that fast-and-loose game with the lives of tenants and the lives of senior citizens, some of whom are facing 40 and 50 percent rent increases and have no way to have those increases reviewed. You've got to have a fair system.

We're not talking rent controls; we're talking a fair, legal process of rent stabilization. Our bill says: "If you've got costs you can't control — extra maintenance costs, extra operating costs — show us. Justify them for 30 percent rent increases."

Mr. Minister, this was a very unfair process you introduced. All I'm saying is that if you believe in that kind of system — what you did — let's have it legal, let's have it up front and let's have every tenant have that opportunity when an increase is clearly a gouge. We know they're there. They're clear gouges. Let's have a fair system to review those gouges. That's fair; that's not control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister responds, I would remind the second member for Victoria that he has two bills on the order paper that deal with this matter, and we do have a rule about anticipation. I would suggest that discussing them in these estimates might be out of order.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm so surprised, because the member for Victoria said that I scored political Brownie points, and I didn't have any intention of scoring political Brownie points. I was there to answer a question, and it just happened that the question came from you, Mr. Member, on the very day that I had been in this conversation. If it had come a day earlier, I wouldn't have been able to say anything. If it had come a few days later, I might have forgotten about it by then. But you asked me just

[ Page 11321 ]

after I had finished having the conversation, so I told you honestly what had happened.

I want to tell you something else, Mr. Member. I don't know the landlord who made this change. To my knowledge, I have never met him, unless he was in a group of people that I was introduced to; I don't remember meeting him. I don't know him; I've never met him. I've never talked to him, and I'm not even very sure what his politics are. So if you think it was something that was cooked up to stage in this House and to embarrass you as a member.... Would I do a thing like that? Are you kidding? Never, my friend. No, we were just acting on the honest truth. Sometimes truth and honesty prevail, and that's what happened in this case: the truth came out.

You talk about rent review and rent controls. Well, you should pay attention to an editorial in the Financial Post. It says what the increases were in British Columbia: last year they averaged 9.6 percent to 11.5 percent. It tells you — if you care to have a copy of this, I'll send it over to you — that this system does not work and that in fact, if it benefits anyone who's renting, it benefits those who rent very expensive accommodation. But it works distinctly against and to the disadvantage of the people who rent the lower-priced accommodation. It doesn't work. And my friend, there is no difference between rent review and rent control.

[9:15]

MR. BLENCOE: What do you say to the senior citizen who is trying to live on a fixed income and gets a 126 percent rent increase, with no justification, a clear gouge, and comes to you and says: "Mr Minister, would you review that?" What's your answer, Mr. Minister? You are saying here that because of some political, Michael Walker–Fraser Institute gobbledegook that you guys continue to support, you won't do anything for that senior citizen.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: If a senior citizen came and his rent was increased to that amount.... It depends, I suppose, on what his rent was before the increase. It depends on what the landlord is doing to improve his accommodations. You yourself said that you can have 30 or 40 percent increases if they are justified. I would say that I would first want to know what the situation was, and then if it was clearly to the disadvantage and unfair to the senior, I would say that this particular case is unfair; that shouldn't happen.

It does happen, but it doesn't happen to all people. We're talking about the average in British Columbia. The average increase was 9 to 11 percent.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has just made my point. He has just given a process that what he would do is a rent review — selective rent review. We on this side do not stand for selective process; we stand for a law that applies to everybody. The minister would proceed with a rent review procedure on a selective basis. That's not appropriate. That's not the way to deal with a million tenants in the province of British Columbia, and it is not the way to deal with our senior citizens who are facing rent increases they clearly cannot afford.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's not the case at all. I'm not talking rent review. All I said was that if somebody is treated unfairly, I would have sympathy for the person, whether he was treated unfairly in a rent situation or in any other situation. But that doesn't change it. You see, in the places where they have rent controls and rent reviews, people get treated unfairly there too. In the province of Ontario, people pay large amounts for key money. Have you heard about key money? That's very unfair too. But they have the rent process in place; they spent $40 million of taxpayers' money to administer it, and they all agree that it doesn't work. They wish they could get out of it. You're suggesting British Columbia get into it. This government has better sense than to lead the province down that path. I'm sure you'll never get the opportunity to, because the people know better than to give you that opportunity.

MR. GABELMANN: Since the Industrial Relations Council was formed, how many public sector labour management disputes have had intervention by private mediators, and how many have had intervention by IRC mediators?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't provide you that information just spontaneously. We don't have that counted up here. We can, I'm sure, get that information, but we don't have it here.

MR. GABELMANN: Given that the minister can't immediately give us the numbers, I wonder if the minister could give us any examples of public sector, government-related labour disputes in which IRC mediators were appointed.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I said we didn't have the information here. I can't provide you with it if I don't have it, but I can get it for you.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that the government wouldn't have information on what it perceives as its flagship legislation for its term in government. Bill 19 in 1987 was flagged as the most significant initiative of the new government; yet, what we've found with that legislation and the council that was established by it is that whenever the government or one of its public sector agencies has had a difficult labour dispute, they have boycotted the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister finds any difference in principle between his boycott of the legislation and that of the labour movement.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't agree that the government, as the member says, is boycotting the IRC. I think the measurement of legislation is the effect that legislation has. If you wish to examine the record, I think you'll find that during the past three years we've enjoyed a great deal of tranquillity in

[ Page 11322 ]

British Columbia as far as labour unrest is concerned. During that time, as a matter of fact, labour has done quite well. Settlements to workers have been very fair, and I think they're recognized as being fair by the workers. Most people are happy with what has happened to their lot during the past three years. So I don't think we have anything to apologize for. It has obviously worked. People have had more time in their workplace; they have not been on the picket lines. They have been at work, earning their income, providing for their families and doing things that they were not able to do before, because the labour climate in B.C. has been very good.

MR. CLARK: In at least one instance, Mr. Peck wrote a letter to the government condemning the government for not utilizing his offices and his Industrial Relations Council to assist in the settlement of a labour dispute involving the provincial government. I'm interested in the minister's views on that question. Given that he's not capable of answering how many times the government used private mediators nor how many times the government used Industrial Relations Council mediators — and I suggest it's probably zero — perhaps the minister can explain why on that one occasion he chose not to utilize the legislative powers, which he defended just a minute ago, to assist in the settlement of the dispute.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Why would the member be concerned with what process I used at the particular time? What the member should be concerned about is the fact that people were not put to a disadvantage. You're talking about the situation surrounding the ambulance workers, I believe. The ambulance situation worked very well. There was no inconvenience to the public, and there was no loss of life as a result of a labour dispute. What is the objection? The fact is that the dispute was resolved, and I believe it was resolved to the satisfaction of the workers, as well as of the people responsible for running the ambulance system in British Columbia. So we have no apologies for that.

Let me remind the member that there's nothing mandatory in the legislation that we have to use the government service, nor was it mandatory previously. What's important is that we are able to settle the disputes that do arise as quickly as possible for the benefit of all people. That's what we've done.

MR. CLARK: The minister wants to ask me questions. He may get a chance to do that six months or a year from now, but at this point in time I'm interested in the minister's philosophy. Surely when you bring in legislation in the House that is particularly detailed and complex, with a wide array of powers conferred upon one individual — which members on this side of the House found offensive at the time, and still do — it's contemplated that somebody will use them. At the very least, it's contemplated that government may use them.

Given that the government has chosen to use a private mediator, this seems to be the ultimate condemnation of the government's own legislation. Perhaps the minister can give us some indication.... First of all, let's deal with it this way. Is it the minister's view that labour legislation requires that both sides agree to the essential rules of the game for the system to work correctly, and that it's because both sides don't agree — including, presumably, the government in this case — to use the mediated powers of the legislation that it chose to use a private mediator?

If the government agrees to that — and by your actions, you agree to it — when does the government intend to change the legislation to better reflect the reality in British Columbia, which is that it isn't working and that all these tools that exist in legislation aren't working and aren't even being used by its authors, the government? When does the government intend to bring in legislation which is more acceptable to both parties, so we can deal with it in a normal way instead of using a private mediator to solve something which should be done in the public sector, and was previously?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: As to when and if the government is going to make any changes to legislation, that is something for the future and something that you and I would have to wait to see. But again, I don't know what the member's concern is. If he could stand up in this House this evening and say that the labour legislation has not worked, that there has been a great hardship to the people and the workers of British Columbia and that there has been a distinct and proven disadvantage to the labour movement in British Columbia, I would say that he had a case. He can't say any of those things, because everybody has done very well in the last three years.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister explain why he needs those sections of the labour code? Why were they brought in if the government has no intention of even using them?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know that I need to explain that to you, but I know that in 1972 or 1973 another party that was in government brought in a labour code and some clauses were never used. In fact some of those clauses are still on the books and have never been used since that time.

MR. REE: I rise on a point of order. Debate in estimates is not normally a debate for legislation or past legislation; it's dealing with the estimates of the minister and possibly the members opposite will refrain from legislative discussions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well taken.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't referring to legislation; I was referring to the use of the legislation that's already been passed in this House by this government — or the lack of use of it.

Clearly, for labour legislation to work, both parties in the labour relations field must buy into the process. Both parties must agree that the law is fair

[ Page 11323 ]

and can be equitably handled and that the Industrial Relations Council, or whatever you want to call it, is fair. That is not the case in British Columbia today. The labour movement continues their boycott, and the government has assisted in that and recognized the legitimacy of labour's claims by not even going on with it themselves. How insulting to the people they've appointed and paid these exorbitant fees to! How insulting to their own people that they won't even use their legislation because it doesn't work!

It won't work unless both parties agree. The government admits it by not using members of the Industrial Relations Council even to mediate their disputes. It's admitted again today that many of the sections are not working, and therefore they have no intention of using it. I look forward to the day when we can again have a balanced labour code in British Columbia that both parties can buy into and that is fair and even-handed and isn't weighted on one side or the other.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I suspect that you also look forward to the day of the return of secondary picketing and people spending a good part of their working life off work because they are affected by a dispute. I guess you look forward to the day when families are having a hard time getting by because their work is interrupted by a labour stoppage that they themselves aren't directly involved in.

There are a lot of other things that I'm sure you're looking forward to, but we're not looking forward to those. We're looking forward to continuing the good climate that has existed in the last three years, and we'll see that it does continue.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $30,485,481 — approved.

Vote 46: prevention and treatment of substance abuse, $50,875,018 — approved.

[9:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Point of Privilege

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

HON. MR. PARKER: I rise in response to the accusations put forth to the House this day by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). I was not in the House at the time, as I was en route from my constituency. I had not received notice from the member for Prince Rupert that he was about to accuse me of deliberately misleading the House during debate on Bill 28 on June 20, 1988.

I have learned what the member's accusations were from a copy of today's Hansard Blues and from copies received from the Clerk of the House of the documents tabled by the member when he made his accusations. Mr. Speaker, I met with you today to advise you that my intention was to reply to the accusations by the member for Prince Rupert at the earliest opportunity. This is the earliest opportunity I have had to reply to these unjust accusations.

During the debate on Bill 28, on June 20, 1988, I was assisted by staff of the ministry. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) asked whether the executive of the ministry had concluded by consensus its recommendations for the award of, as he put it, the Sustut application and the North Takla one. That's on page 5225 of Hansard, June 20, 1988. Not being part of the executive, I was advised by staff that basically that is what occurs, so I replied: "Recommendation basically by consensus." That is on page 5226 of Hansard.

The member for Prince Rupert says that the ombudsman's report of June 22, 1990, file 88 02617, "appears to suggest otherwise." I have been unable to determine anything in that particular ombudsman's report that suggests that the executive of the Ministry of Forests does not basically determine by consensus its timber tenure award recommendations.

The member for Prince Rupert went on today to say that my response to the first member for Vancouver East, "The deputy chief forester made that decision" — that too is on page 5226 of Hansard — was contrary to the ombudsman's report of June 22, 1990, file 88 02617.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Forests at the time I carried the message to the deputy chief forester — the recommendations from cabinet about the award of forest licence A27823. The deputy chief forester made the decision "to award the licence to these Prince George companies," as is stated in that same ombudsman's report.

The accusation by the member for Prince Rupert that I have deliberately misled the House is not true. Mr Speaker, I demand of that member a full apology, and that his apology be without evasion or equivocation.

I'd like to table this statement with the Clerk of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. It's customary that a member who is named in a matter of privilege has an opportunity to rise at the first occasion; this is the first occasion. The Chair will take under consideration this matter as well as the matter brought forward by the member for Prince Rupert and bring back a decision at some future time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 64: minister's office, $270,000.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will try and be brief in my remarks. I will start by saying that

[ Page 11324 ]

we operate with a very small number of staff, 77 in total. I am extremely pleased with the amount of ground the staff covers. There are several divisions, and they look after the entire province and have a presence in every corner of British Columbia.

We all know that tourism is British Columbia's fastest-growing industry. In terms of gross numbers of jobs, it's the biggest employer in British Columbia, and getting bigger. We had a great year in 1989. Indeed, the record will show that we were the only province in Canada with a growth in tourism in 1989. All other provinces experienced declines of one degree or another. Some of our greatest increases came from such countries as Japan, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and Australia. We witnessed increases in those areas as high as 45 percentage points.

We have a vast mixture of products within our province. As far as tour buses are concerned, we are, for the fourth straight year, among the top three in all of North America in what we call package tours. That was a direct result of the success of Expo, in which year — 1986 — we jumped from eleventh position to third position. We are also experiencing a very significant growth in high-quality outdoor experiences and getaway vacations — tremendous growth in the golf course industry, wilderness resorts, heli-skiing and heli-hiking, and many other types of adventure tours. We are very pleased to see the results of the Stena Line expansion in the lower part of Vancouver Island.

A lot of events are coming to the lower mainland and throughout the province. To mention only a few, there is the Symphony of Fire, the Benson and Hedges fireworks display, which is expected to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors, and the Indy 500 on the Labour Day weekend, which is expected to attract tens of thousands of visitors from outside the province; and the Dragon Boat races were held in late June.

We expect to see good growth in agricultural fairs throughout the province, with particular emphasis on the PNE, the IPE, the Cloverdale Fall Fair and similar areas. We'll be working very closely with all those agricultural components to build on them.

I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I was extremely pleased with the support I had from my cabinet colleagues and Treasury Board in getting 2 percent of the gross hotel room tax turned over to tourism marketing, effective April 1, 1991.

We're also looking forward in 1991 to the Year of Music, which we expect to be a tremendous extravaganza — every bit as big as far as the entire province is concerned as Expo 86 was for the lower mainland.

We're looking forward to an expansion of the Tourism presence outside the lower mainland, Victoria and Vancouver areas. We'll be working on that over the next few months, and also an expansion of provincial tourism information centres.

With that, I will sit down. I know that the critic is very anxious to ask some questions, and I look forward to the interesting debate on tourism for British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to take my place in the tourism debate. I appreciate the 45 minutes' notice I had for this debate; it was delightful.

Obviously we all know that tourism is the fastest growing industry in the province and also the second largest. Therefore it deserves great attention on the part of the ministry. As I said last year, one of the things that people in tourism tell me they need most is coordination at the ministry level. I am pleased to note that the ministry is a Ministry of Tourism again this year and not an adjunct to another ministry. That's a step in the right direction. A consolidation of all the things that affect tourism is very important. It's important to have coordination and a long-term commitment because of the nature of the industry. I commend the government for making that change, and I sincerely hope that for the duration of this government's time in office — which won't be too much longer — there will be no further changes. We've had a major change every year under this administration, and I think it has been very detrimental and disturbing to the functioning of the ministry.

One of the issues of most concern to tourism operators is land and resource use, as we all know. The mountaintop-to-shoreline clearcuts that we've seen at Kyuquot Sound, the problems at Robson Bight, clearcuts around fishing lodges and resorts, the ferrochromium plant, mining in parks and all of those kinds of things are examples of conflict between one type of resource use and another. As far as I can see, there's no immediate solution — or no solution even in the offing — for those kinds of problems.

I would simply like to suggest to the minister that, along with some other problems, that is one of the most serious. As we know, we've seen advertising in major magazines both in the United States and in Canada. I would suggest that perhaps the growing publicity around our problems of confrontation and conflict in the province is in part causing the drop-off of tourism from the United States. I'd like to suggest that the minister ought to have a very proactive role in trying to find solutions for those problems. Obviously, tourism must have a strong voice in land and resource use decision-making. Our parks must have adequate budgets and must be well looked after. I'm not convinced that privatization has met that end. So I would just like to offer that.

I would like to move to some questions. I'd like to start with some questions about the Partners in Tourism program, which has been very successful. It started in 1985. Of course, what it has done is empower people at the regional and local level and attract large numbers of small businesses to cooperate to jointly market their products. It has been a sparkplug for tourism, and it has worked very well.

I seem to have a tea-party going on behind me, and it's a little difficult to concentrate.

Partners in Tourism has been very effective. I'm surprised, quite frankly, given the importance of tourism, as the minister has pointed out, that there has been a drop in funding to Partners in Tourism

[ Page 11325 ]

consistently throughout this administration. It took a 25 percent drop in 1987, and in spite of the fact that media costs, which is a major expense, are rising by approximately 5 percent each year, we haven't seen any significant increase since.

Would the minister tell me just what the amount of funding is this year, and how it compares to last year? In anticipation of the answer, I would like to know also just what the minister sees as the role of Partners in Tourism. Is it a program to which there is an ongoing commitment by your ministry? If so, how do you see that happening in terms of providing funding to those nine regions? Could you answer me that? Also, long-term commitment — longer than one year.

[9:45]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The most common question I get when travelling the regions is that very question about the long-term commitment or even a short-term commitment to Partners in Tourism. There seems to be a tremendous fear in the industry that this program is going to be phased out. I can assure the member that there has never been any discussion along those lines. As a matter of fact, as I said in my opening remarks, with the 2 percent committed from the hotel-motel room tax, which is going to give the Ministry of Tourism significantly more millions of dollars in tourist marketing in 1991 than we've had this year, there's no doubt in my mind that the Partners in Tourism, far from being phased out, because of its popularity will be expanded.

Regarding the attention given to the industry, I've got to give tremendous credit to the nine regions in the province, the tremendous number of private sector people who work within those nine regions and also the large number of people who serve on the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council who give their time freely and willingly to make a contribution to the planning and suggestions for tourism marketing and tourism in general throughout the province.

Far from the Partners in Tourism program being phased out, we're looking at the opposite for 1991.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm happy to hear that the government has a commitment to Partners in Tourism. However, I'm surprised to hear the minister suggest that there is something surprising about the fear out there for the erosion of the program. As I say, there was a 25 percent cut in funding in 1987, and since then there has been approximately a 30 percent drop in real purchasing power because the government has essentially frozen the amount going into that program. Perhaps the minister would like to respond to that.

The industry is very concerned — as I know you are aware — that the commitment of one year at a time to Partners in Tourism is simply too short. What we do now affects tourism a long way down the road The span usually looked at is five years. I know the industry has been asking for a longer-term commitment. The council of regions has been asking for a longer term of support, perhaps a minimum of two years. I wonder if the minister is prepared to do that

I have a third question on Partners in Tourism funding. The minister suggested the 2 percent rebate that's going to go directly into the ministry — which, I understand, is a precedent, to collect a tax and have it go directly back in — will go directly into the Partners in Tourism program. Is that a commitment that your ministry has made? I wonder if you'd answer those three questions, please.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: No, it's not a commitment that the total amount will go into Partners in Tourism, but I can assure the member that the ministry will be giving serious consideration to a significant portion of those extra millions of dollars being put toward the Partners in Tourism program.

Regarding the long-term commitment, I don't know what else the member could ask for other than the commitment that has been given by cabinet and Treasury Board. I might add it was a first. It's a very significant thing for tourism that we have 2 percent of the hotel-motel room tax all across the face of British Columbia being committed to tourist marketing. There's been no suggestion that this is a one- or a two-year program. This is a commitment that the difference between the 6 percent and the 8 percent sales tax will go toward tourism marketing. It think that's a very good commitment.

I would further say that in British Columbia from 1986 we must have been doing something right with the dollars we spent. Yes, there have been more dollars been put in one program versus the other program, but this is well-thought-out strategy. In 1986 there was a big hit on the Partners program. In 1987 there was a deliberate, major hit for Tourism expenditure in the international marketplace. In paid off in spades, because the dip in tourism in 1987 was very small compared to the projections — many of those projections given by the members of the opposition in the years 1985-86. All in all it's pretty hard to fault the strategy that B.C. Tourism has been following up to now.

I want to say for the record that we have 77 employees working in Tourism. The province of Alberta has three times that number. In 1989 our tourism volume went up, but Alberta's went down. I repeat, we must be doing something right.

MS. PULLINGER: On the issue of the 2 percent rebate, everyone's clear that this is going back into the Ministry of Tourism. However, the regions are very aware of a clear difference in the things that you suggest. It's one thing for the ministry to collect that money, to decide how it's going to be spent and to control the spending and what shape it takes and what it promotes and which region it promotes and how. It's another thing to fund the locally based tourism regions — the nine marketing regions — so that they can cooperate and double that money through this program and involve more of those small businesses that can't afford to market effectively otherwise. Those are two very different kinds of marketing, and obviously there's some concern out there that this 2 percent will go back under ministry control and that the Partners in Tourism will continue

[ Page 11326 ]

to erode and become less and less. Thus the whole control over marketing and what happens in tourism will then revert to Victoria.

Yes, we've had a lot of people come into the province, and yes, tourism has been growing. Obviously the industry is very happy with that. But one of the problems is that, as we've heard many times before, we have an overheated market in Victoria and the lower mainland. Expo, for instance, while it brought enormous numbers of people into the province — and that was good — also created a black hole for the regions. They had a very difficult time during that year. People out in the regions don't want to see it happen again. That's the basis of their concern, when they see the erosion of Partners in Tourism and no firm long-term commitment that the program will in fact be funded at least at the same level, including increases for inflation or better.

Can the minister tell us what the commitment is, then, on the basis of the things I've just described? What is the commitment of the ministry in terms of the 2 percent tax and the level of ongoing Partners in Tourism funding?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Well, Mr. Chairman, what we're doing right now is that we've met with the nine regions. We've also met with the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council and have asked them: "Look, bring us your recommendations. Bring us your input." We're making the same offer to the hotel and motel industry. We're looking for their suggestions. I went so far as to ask the nine regions: "Draft a budget of what you would like to see. Tell us what your needs are. Tell us the amount of interest that you have in a presence for tourism in such places as Calgary, Edmonton, Spokane, Europe — which we do not have at this time — and the Pacific Rim. What are your ideas on perhaps partnering some of these sites? Perhaps the Rocky Mountain region would be interested in the Calgary area. Perhaps the Kootenay region would be interested in the Spokane area."

There are all kinds of areas for partnership. I might also add for the record that we've had tremendous cooperation from the province of Alberta. We have worked very closely with them on the Canada West program. We've also done some partnering with them and some promotions. We've also worked very closely with the state of Alaska and the Yukon Territory in partnering Tourism North, which has proven to be extremely successful as well.

So we are attempting the biggest bang for the buck. I don't hear that many complaints coming from the regions. They are indeed working with the private sector. They're generating their own programs. If I have one complaint about the regions, it's that they're somewhat parochial. They're not thinking globally from a provincial point of view. So we're trying to get programs set up which will emphasize that aspect as well.

MS. PULLINGER: I understand, then, that your negotiations with the nine tourism regions are to work in partnership with the ministry rather than just giving the funding to the nine tourism regions. Is that correct? You can just nod, if you like.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: You want to wait and respond. Okay. That's my understanding — that you want to keep that 2 percent in the ministry and decide how it's spent, rather than simply giving it to the nine tourism regions as core funding for them to decide. The minister is nodding his head.

Can we look forward to a continued freeze on Partners in Tourism funding — that core funding that they are simply given each year to develop their own marketing strategies?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: You will not look forward to a continuing freeze. What I said earlier on two occasions is that I am confident you can look forward to significant growth. We are looking for the regions to give us suggestions on their needs and to prove the need. I'm sure there will be funds available for significant increases in 1991.

MS. PULLINGER: Just a very short question, also on taxation, and then it will be time to adjourn. The other major concern of the tourism industry in British Columbia, as we all know, is the federal goods and services tax. One of the great difficulties is the minimum $20 rebate to non-residents staying in local accommodation.

The concern is that it will rule out short trips and some of the more spontaneous business conferences and spur-of-the-moment visitors, as the GST director of Peat Marwick has suggested. Would the minister tell me what he has done in terms of dealing with the federal government to alleviate both the nightmare of red tape in simply collecting the tax, and this problem of a non-resident rebate for which people will have to wait to collect, and which will also create a problem in the industry in terms of attracting those shorter-term conferences and more spontaneous visits? Would the minister tell me what he's been doing with the federal government or within his own government, and what action is planned to deal with those problems?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I find that being in the Legislature in Victoria is not much different than being in the constituency. Whenever I hear of a problem dealing with the federal government, I get a cold chill up my back, because I know the complexities of solving problems at that level.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:58 p.m.