1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 9
[ Page 7479 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of students from Erma Stephenson Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. There are 75 grade 6 and 7 students here. Only half are in the gallery at the present time, due to the large number. I think they're in the gallery. They may be; if not, they will be soon. They'll be there with their teacher, Mr. Beer, and several parents. The other section will be introduced at a later time, when they come forward. Would the House please join me in making them welcome and extend to them our heartiest wishes for a good day in Victoria.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like the members of the House to welcome the mayor of Port Hardy, Mr. Al Huddlestan, who is in the gallery.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rose on a matter of privilege. This morning I would like to be able to present to the House and to the Speaker some information with respect to the matter of privilege raised by the member.
The member contended yesterday that the four pieces of legislation that were introduced, both by the Health minister and myself, about adult guardianship may have been prereleased to the media in respect to a story that occurred in yesterday's Vancouver Sun. I want to indicate that this was not the case. The legislation was not prereleased. The Queen's Printer, in fact, informs my staff that the four bills were not printed and collated until 9 o'clock -- an hour before introduction in the House -- and were not released until 10:15 a.m. from the Queen's Printer office. The Sun, of course, was on the street long before that.
I think the....
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, there's a very interesting and good public policy reason for what happened. The contents of the bill would have been of no surprise to thousands of British Columbians, because they have been involved in a four-year process to develop the bills. That's probably the reason why there has been a lot of knowledge of this whole process and of the specifics in terms of principles, contents and directions that the bills contain. This process started in 1989, and in the fall of 1992 the government was presented with a report called "How Can We Help?" that was released publicly. In that report, a number of recommendations were made, including recommendations to develop the four statutes -- all of which were named in the report, including the one referred to by the member and by the Vancouver Sun. This report, which was released last fall, recommends on page 31 that the provisions set out in that chapter be enacted in a representation agreement act, with appropriate cross-referencing to other legislation. So this was very much in the public domain for some eight months or so. The government accepted the report. The community involved in developing the legislation was very much aware of that for some time.
How would the media have known that this was happening? We issued two releases in advance of yesterday. One was to stakeholders, that terrible word we use to describe people who are involved in processes. This invitation to the so-called stakeholders was issued June 10 and June 11 and indicated that the Minister of Health and myself would announce new legislation to improve the adult guardianship system. That's the extent of the information in that. In addition, a media advisory was sent out on June 15 announcing that there would be a press conference on June 17 in Vancouver at 12 o'clock, two hours after the introduction of the legislation.
I just want members to know that when we involve the public, as we did in this very extensive consultation process, the public is going to know about the contents of legislation. However, they did not know about the final details of the bill, because on Wednesday morning -- the day before -- I was still involved in approving final drafting changes. Those did not get done until Wednesday, following which it went to the Queen's Printer, and it didn't get printed until the next morning, following the Vancouver Sun deadline.
Finally, I will just say that I think the privilege of members is very important. Legislation in its final form should not be distributed anywhere in advance of being introduced to this House. We have honoured that very important protocol in this instance.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tables documents.
The Speaker: Having accepted the submission from the minister who was directly involved, I certainly will accept, on the basis of the new information, additional information from the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on the point of privilege.
D. Mitchell: The hon. Attorney General has clarified the circumstances which led to the raising of the point of privilege yesterday. I am pleased to accept his explanation and clarification of this. I don't think any member of this assembly would want anything other than for this government to engage in meaningful and public consultation prior to bringing legislation forward. I accept what the hon. Attorney General has said today as a reaffirmation of the privileges of all members of this assembly and the principle that legislation in its final form should not be available to the news media or to anyone, other than members of this assembly, prior to introduction and first reading in this House.
So long as that principle is reaffirmed, and I take it the hon. Attorney General has done that with his statement this morning, I think members can rest easier. Thank you.
[ Page 7480 ]
The Speaker: In hearing those submissions, the Chair will assume that the House is satisfied with regard to this matter.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Authorities Act, 1993.
Hon. E. Cull: This bill is a significant piece of legislation upon which the decentralization of health care in British Columbia will be based. The bill establishes the framework necessary to begin the transfer of authority to new agencies at the regional and community levels. As members of the assembly are undoubtedly aware, the decentralization of health decision-making to local levels is the key feature of the New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia, our government's plan to maintain and improve health services in the province.
Under this bill regional health boards are to be established, with the responsibility for providing for health services on a regional basis. Community health councils will be established in local areas, with responsibility for health service delivery, including the coordination and integration of health services and the operation of hospitals and other facilities. Community health councils will consist of equal numbers of persons chosen to represent the community, representing regional districts, municipal councils and school boards, and nominated by the Minister of Health. Regional health boards will consist primarily of persons chosen from community health councils in their regions.
Since I announced the government's new directions in health four months ago, many communities throughout our province have achieved considerable progress in preparing for the decentralization of health decision-making. This legislation will allow them to take the next step when they are ready. Because we expect to learn from the efforts of these communities -- those which are the first to form community health councils and regional health boards -- this legislation is necessarily transitional and will be substantially amended next year, based on the lessons learned from these leading communities.
[10:15]
This bill represents a very important step forward in our new directions for health in B.C. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 45 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.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. E. Cull: This bill makes a number of important changes to the Health Professions Act in order to expand the size of the Health Professions Council and improve the regulation of health professions which are designated under the act. The Health Professions Act sets up an umbrella framework for the regulation of health professions in B.C. The most significant amendments are contained in three areas.
First, the size of the council is being expanded in order for the council to take on a new mandate, which was previously announced in "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia." Under the New Directions strategy, the council is being asked to review the scopes of practice and legislation for established professions. The council will also have the ability to work in panels, which will have the same authority that the council has now to conduct investigations. I just might say that the three members of the council who have been serving since its inception have done a tremendous job, but these three individuals cannot possibly carry on with the volume of work that has been coming in to the council. They definitely need some assistance.
Secondly, there's a new duty and objects clause being added to the act to set out a mandate for a professional college. This section clearly sets out that the duty of a college is to serve the public interest and that the college must carry out a number of specific objects in order to fulfil that mandate. The objects include establishing and maintaining standards of education, standards of practice and professional ethics, providing for a continuing competency program and a patients relations program, and requiring registrants to provide access to health care records in appropriate circumstances. Professional colleges are sometimes criticized for acting in the interests of the profession rather than in the public interest. This mission statement will clarify the duty and objectives that the government expects of a college regulating a health profession designated under the act.
The third area of change in this bill is the addition of a minimum one-third proportion of public members on the board of a professional college. The current provision in the Health Professions Act provides that the minister may appoint up to one-half of the board. This amendment will set a minimum requirement that the board of a professional college must be composed of at least one-third public members.
Bill 55 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.
[ Page 7481 ]
Boomers
A. Cowie: Everyone has heard of the baby-boom generation. The baby-boomers were blamed for the distortion of many things, such as the need for high school space and recreation facilities, type of housing needed, the increased costs in medical care and even the devaluation of the pay-as-you-go Canada Pension Plan.
It's commonly thought that baby-boomers were a result of servicemen returning from the Second World War. In fact, the boomers were born from 1952 to 1966 and peaked in 1959, when the largest number of live births was recorded in Canada. This was a time of good economies and the last period when large numbers of women stayed at home to raise a lot of children.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I remember those times because I was really a pre-boomer. I still am a pre-boomer. I can remember those times; they were good times. I can remember high school. I can remember football, hunting, fishing, getting my first car -- it was an old one -- and travelling and working in Europe, Australia and places like that. I didn't have many problems.
The typical boomers are now aged 27 to 41. There are lots of typical boomers in this House. With regard to the term boomer, market researchers refer to anyone born before 1945 and now over the age of 48 as a preboomer. Anyone under 27 -- I don't think that would be anybody in here -- is a postboomer or an after-boomer. You might ask why I am bringing up all this demographic trivia.
Some Hon. Members: Why?
A. Cowie: Thank you.
There are two reasons. As the Housing critic, firstly, I am very interested in the baby-boomers because of their numbers, which has distorted the housing market. As baby-boomers have become older and their demands have changed, there has been a change in the housing demand. As the boomers get to age 40 or 45, they have less need for a typical single-family house, which is the predominant type of house in our communities, especially in no-growth communities. And there are many no-growth communities in the suburbs, as you know. The demand is increasing for different types of housing. As children move out, people need less space; they want to travel more. They need smaller houses, but in some communities it's impossible to find those.
In the west side of Vancouver -- Point Grey, Kerrisdale and those sorts of areas -- you cannot find a townhouse, a garden apartment, a small lot or anything innovative, other than a single-family house. I'm not condemning that; that's natural. People essentially built those kinds of houses because they needed them at one time. But the boomers' generation is going to change that. Secondly, I'm concerned that as we move into the next ten years or so, fewer people of boomer and postboomer age will be able to afford housing that suits them.
Unless the Canada Pension Plan is greatly altered, it will not give retired persons sufficient funds to live on, let alone keep up a house. With the age structure in Canada, there will not be a sufficient number of working people to pay for people's pensions when they retire. When the baby-boomers approach 65 years of age, they will not get the same pension plan that pensioners get today. With 41 percent of our working population without any form of pension plan at all, there simply will not be the funds for those people to be able to afford an accommodation that they deserve when they retire.
Hon. members, we are heading into a crisis period over the next ten or 20 years. Government and the housing industry, especially those companies catering to retired people and the seniors market, should start looking to innovative housing solutions. Government insurance companies, employers and individuals should start looking at securing more old age security. Baby boomers, senior boomers and even pre-boomers will likely retire later. They're going to have to work longer and have more part-time jobs in order to keep their living standards up. Already insurance companies and financial institutions are looking at new ways of financing retirement, such as home equity conversion plans.
Increased taxes -- as we're seeing every year now -- deferred taxes and higher costs are going to completely change the concept of inheritance. Our children and our children's children will not expect any inheritance. The boomers will need every single dollar they've got simply to see through their retirement years. The struggle will be to continue to have the attractive, affordable lifestyle that we have at present and maintain our lives with dignity. This will be our challenge here in the House -- a challenge that will require leadership, innovation and flexibility.
J. MacPhail: I'm pleased that the member opposite raises this issue in the House today. He is quite correct in stating that it is a very important issue. I think he has done an admirable job in outlining some of the parameters surrounding the issue of housing for baby boomers and also -- what do we call it? -- the echo-boom that is occurring now for younger parents. I would like to assure him and the people of British Columbia that it is an extremely important issue for our government as well.
We took a lead in January of this year by releasing the Report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options: New Directions in Affordability. This commission report, as I know the member is well aware, offered a range of options for shaping an approach to policy and programs aimed at not only protecting but also expanding affordable housing for British Columbians. Just some of the recommendations in that report concern increasing the supply of affordable housing and addressing the issue of affordability for first-time
[ Page 7482 ]
homebuyers, the target group that the member opposite is talking about. That report also made many useful recommendations around the issue of facilitating housing partnerships between the community, the non-profit sector, the private sector, cooperatives, advocacy groups and local governments.
I know that our Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing has made a commitment to move very quickly to implement a substantial number of the 57 recommendations contained in that report. I also know that all hon. members are well aware of what has happened to the national housing program. I'm sure members opposite share our concern with the cuts that have been made by the federal government to social housing programs. Since 1991 Canada's social housing budget has been cut by two-thirds. As a result of that federal cut, fewer than 500 new homes for families in need will be built in B.C. in 1993. Because of that, we share the sense of urgency that the member opposite has outlined so articulately.
Another issue that we have to concern ourselves with is that there are many British Columbians who simply will never be able to afford their own home. Therefore we have to make sure that we expand the number of rental housing units as well. The commission on New Directions in Affordability did address that, and it made some very useful suggestions to deal with the issue of increasing affordable housing for the rental market and the real need to legalize secondary suites and provide substantial rental housing.
The report also addressed the issue of the cost of land and how that impedes affordable housing. It made some interesting recommendations about the role that government can play to ensure an adequate land supply for all forms of housing. We took that recommendation very seriously, and I was pleased to join with our government and the Minister of Housing when he made the announcement around the Oakalla lands. As you know, what was a correctional institute is now land available for affordable housing, and our government has put forward a program that will put 75 affordable housing units for seniors on those lands and 60 family-oriented townhouses. So we're well on the way, and I know that the opposition will join us in making further issues happen.
A. Cowie: I'm very pleased that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has replied and seems to understand the problem very well, being herself a boomer with an after-boomer. We in the opposition are looking forward to the actual implementation of some of the recommendations in that housing report, which I think was very well done.
[10:30]
In preparing for this statement I happened to go through an article in Plan Canada for May 1993 on the very problem that I was having in getting anything done in flexible approaches to housing. It talked about inclusionary planning. Current planning, zoning and even housing regulations are exclusionary. They exclude people. Our present tradition in regulations was essentially implemented to protect neighbourhoods. It started in the early part of this century but became more vigorous after the 1970s, especially when small groups formed to make sure that neighbourhoods were kept as they were. You can drive through many parts of this province and see large areas of large single-family lots of the same kind of housing. That is essentially because the boomers were going through and they needed that kind of housing. That kind of zoning was started. I started my professional practice in the seventies and was a part of that. I was always struggling for innovative and different housing. In fact, many people used to get quite mad at me because of my point of view. Those typical subdivisions excluded mothers with children, older people, seniors and people who didn't have enough income to afford the housing in those subdivisions. It excluded many people in our society.
I must say that only in some of the inner areas of our communities are there delightful areas. I invite all members to go and walk through that part of Vancouver between Burrard Street and the boulevard on 14th and 15th. It's an innovative area, an area of flexibility that encourages people of all ages and different backgrounds. There are different kinds of housing in there. It's a delight to go through there. It's all done by private people because the city has allowed the flexibility to take place that does not exist in many of our subdivisions. I use that as an example. I also want to invite....
The Speaker: I advise the hon. member that regrettably his allotted time has expired.
A. Cowie: Yes, it is regrettable, but if I could make one final statement.
Interjections.
A Cowie: We have to find ways that neighbourhoods can become inclusive for all people.
THE CASE FOR CHILD CARE
J. Pullinger: I just want to say we really were happy to allow that member to finish his last statement.
Today, hon Speaker, I want to argue the case for child care. I want to argue that child care is not what it's often portrayed to be: a women's issue or a frill. I want to argue that child care and the provision of adequate affordable accessible child care is an issue that ought to be vitally important to every one of us. I also want argue that we ought to have a national strategy and national standards.
I want to deal first with a very fundamental question that always comes up when we talk about child care in this country. That question is: whose responsibility are the children? Some members of the previous government and lots of other people would say that it is solely a parental responsibility, or that it's a family responsibility. Those same people would say that if we have a child care system where parents can leave their children at a safe and healthy place, that such a provision of child care will cause a breakdown of the family and an abdication of parental responsibility.
[ Page 7483 ]
I want to point out too that buried in those statements is an assumption that women will stay home with children and that women are responsible for children. The sad fact is that in most cases women still are. The women that work outside the home spend on average eight and a half hours looking after home and family as well as their job. It's a well-known double day of work.
No matter what our opinions are on the issue, no matter who we feel ought to be responsible -- parents or family -- and no matter what our views are about gender roles, women's roles or the roles of families, I think all of us who debate this issue would agree that the fundamental bottom line is that our children ought to be well cared for. If that's the case, then we all ought to be working towards the goals of more child care, more affordable child care and more accessible child care. Those who are inclined to argue against that, I would like to suggest, need to look again at the reality of what is a family in the 1990s.
When I was a child, and the previous speaker pointed out the same thing, we all enjoyed what was known as the traditional family -- or most of us did. We certainly believed that was the norm, where the mother stayed at home and the father went out and earned a family wage. But a number of things have changed in our society to alter the basic nature of a family. The first one is that there has been a great deal of social change. Divorces happen; about 50 percent of relationships end up in divorce. Families break down and we therefore have an increasing number of single-parent families. Secondly, the drive for women's equality has meant that women are no longer content to have their job defined by their gender and similarities. They want to do the same as men do: they want to look at their individuality and differences and take those difference out and use those skills and abilities in the public life of this country.
The third thing is the erosion of the family income. Over the last few decades, and particularly in the 1980s, incomes have been eroded to the point where it is no longer possible for the vast majority of families to live on one income. That means that approximately two-thirds of all women work outside the home. In approximately two-thirds of families, both parents work. In 70 percent of families with children under six, both parents work. So in two-thirds of the families in this province, we need to find some way to care for those children while the parents are at work. The bread-winner family that we like to assume in some of our arguments -- or some do -- is essentially a thing of the past. Fewer than 20 percent of families are traditional, bread-winner families where the father goes out to work and the woman stays home to look after the children.
I also want to touch briefly on a special category of families that is particularly vulnerable and particularly need child care: single parents. We all know that when we're talking about single parents, we're talking about single mothers in the overwhelming majority of cases. Whereas almost 70 percent of women work, only 47 percent of single mothers work. That's because there's a fundamental dichotomy: you can't both stay at home with your children and go out and work. The result is that 76 percent of single-parent families live in poverty. The parent is poor and the children are poor. I'd like to refer members to my 1989 statement on child poverty, which outlines in great detail the human cost, social cost and very real cost to the taxpayers of that poverty.
Our children are important. Child care is an important component of a healthy economy and society, and the availability of child care has become a significant factor in attracting and maintaining a skilled labour force. When employees have good, dependable child care, employers benefit. Workers are more productive, less likely to be absent or late or to leave work early and less likely to suffer extreme stress.
I'm proud to say that this government has done a great deal in the past year towards advancing child care, getting it on the agenda and moving toward more child care spaces. Over 5,000 new child care spaces have been created across the province, and there are five new programs to support child care. There's an infant and toddler incentive grant, where the greatest need is: for those very young children. It will help to support child care providers and address the shortage of spaces for children under 36 months.
The Ministry of Women's Equality is supporting Canada's first 24-hour hospital-based child care centre for patients, hospital staff and community parents. The 17-member Provincial Child Care Council was established. It will give parents, child care workers and communities a voice in developing and evaluating child care policies and programs. There's an aboriginal child care working group as well, and we've made changes to day care subsidy and a number of other things. I'll continue after the response.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond to member for Cowichan-Ladysmith on the case for child care. She made reference to the Minister of Women's Equality and last year's estimates debate, June 10 -- just a year ago. The Minister of Women's Equality acknowledged during last year's estimates debate that in B.C. the picture for parents who seek child care in their communities is very bleak. Parents have scrambled for quality care for their children, and in many cases have not found it. I think we all agree that the fundamental consideration for families must be providing some kind of care. Certainly if we go back to the statistics, in 1976 we had 595,000 children under the age of 14 in this province. The current child population for that age category is over 695,000. The dilemma has magnified; our response has not kept pace. Certainly I acknowledge the work of the Ministry of Women's Equality because I believe we are truly on the right track, but there is much work to be done.
We're talking about economic strengths for men and women in our society. Child care is a key component of that. The availability of child care must be a given. It astounds me that hundreds of years have gone by and we're still discussing whether or not it's appropriate for governments to be providing those services. I absolutely believe that the role of government is to set standards and ensure that child care is available. I do
[ Page 7484 ]
not wish to see any families scrambling to find care so that they can remain in employable situations.
At the end of the day, we're going to pay tremendously for not providing those services. I would rather pay where it's going to do the most good in terms of preventive care and care that's going to allow students to enter the school system with some reasonable continuity in their lives. We haven't done that. The hon. member speaks of single-parent families. In 1991 one in every five families was a lone-parent family. We have to recognize those realities and ensure that we have some things in place to take care of that.
We talk about the accessibility and availability questions. We have individuals in our province who can afford to pay for child care but simply cannot find it. We have individuals who have fewer financial resources; I accept that. But we are frustrating both sides of the question. We are frustrating the people who simply cannot find it, for whom securing this service somewhere becomes a life work.
I also think the member's comments are well taken in terms of round-the-clock child care spaces. We do a decent job of nine-to-five child care -- and we have to continue to refer to it as child care. Once we refer to it as day care, we're back in a situation where families only require care during regular working hours. The majority of women in the workforce work shifts. A lot of women who want to go to school to take courses to improve their employability have to take them after hours, and then they cannot find child care. If we're truly going to make a commitment to child care, we must do it with the Ministry of Advanced Education, so we can have women who wish to return to work actually able to find care that allows them to attend the courses. We're still not as well evolved as we can be on those kinds of considerations. There are certainly a number of issues, but the issue at the end of the day is that we want women to have some choices. If they choose to go to school or to work, the consideration of child care should be a given that's accepted by society.
The member comments in terms of the traditional family. I think we must respect what is now the non-traditional family unit in Canada and on this planet. We have different configurations, and we cannot continue just to put in place the standard response. We have gotten away with the standard response for a long time. It wasn't acceptable to women ten years ago, and I'm trusting that it's not acceptable to society at large today.
[10:45]
We've talked a lot about this topic, but we've seen very little action. I would speak strongly to national child care standards in this country. It's time that all people came together -- party and gender notwithstanding -- in the belief that children should receive decent, adequate care and that that should be a priority for all provinces, all Canadians and all people who live on this earth with us. If we don't provide reasonable care for children, we aren't allowing children to make any reasonable choices as they move on. If economic questions are going to be considered, children need to start considering them when they're a lot younger; otherwise we have not provided anyone with any real choices.
J. Pullinger: I'd like to thank the Liberal member for her comments. I'm glad we agree. We have done a tremendous amount in this province in 18 months. We recognize there's a long way to go, but we have a lot of history to catch up with and a very bad budget situation. I am quite proud to be part of this government that is making child care a priority. Sadly, we can't say the same thing about the federal government. We've had a tremendous amount of doublespeak on the part of the federal Conservative government. On the one hand, they say they're pro-family; on the other hand, their economic policies have undermined the family. As the National Action Committee on the Status of Women pointed out, the neo-conservative policies of the federal government and the previous Social Credit government in this province eroded incomes and the position of women and the family in this country during the 1980s more than in any other decade in our history -- and the children are often the losers. I sponsored a child poverty forum in Nanaimo just before I was elected and discovered, to my horror, that at least 25 percent of the children in that community -- closer to 30 percent -- live in poverty. That's simply not acceptable.
We have an overwhelming demand for child care. Prior to an election the federal government continues to promise child care, but walks away from it immediately after. In 1988 the Tories introduced a $4 billion child care program -- about the cost of the helicopters that are in the news today. In April 1989 it was scrapped in the name of restraint. Similarly, in the '88 federal election, the Tories committed $60 million for native care. That also disappeared in 1989.
Despite the best efforts of municipalities and the provincial government, the child care crisis has grown because of federal cuts in basic programs to aid families.
The capping of the Canada Assistance Plan by the Tories in 1990 also hurt child care. Even if the provinces were willing to increase services, they couldn't get their programs cost-shared by Ottawa. In 1990 the Canada Assistance Plan cost-shared funds to be used to subsidize provincial spaces for children from low-income families. In 1990 those were capped for Ontario, Alberta and B.C. This has severely restricted the ability of these provinces to meet the essential needs of the residents.
We have seen a child care deduction that only applies to a few families and it misses those who need it the most. But I think the saddest comment of all -- and I hope everyone will remember that the overwhelming majority of families require child care -- is that in 1992, Beno�t Bouchard, the current federal Minister of Health, said: "Child care is now considered a last priority." Child care is no longer on the Tory agenda. That is a national shame, and I hope we all recognize that in the next election.
[ Page 7485 ]
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
C. Tanner: Last week my friend from Powell River presented a speech to this Legislature entitled "Revolution." I listened with anticipation, and finally found out that all he wanted to do was move the seats around in this House. I have a speech here which really is revolution. I should also mention to all members of the House that it's strictly my point of view. It does not concern -- nor was there any reference to -- any of the members on this side of the House, and I'm sure there wouldn't be any reference to members on that side of the House. I made a disclaimer a month ago when I discussed the finances of government, and I make the same disclaimer this time when I talk about the reorganization of government.
During the referendum last fall the public expressed dissatisfaction with the government and with their elected representatives. The public thumbed their collective noses at the political advice from nearly all federal and provincial parties. I think they were expressing frustration with the complexity of government, with the duplication of government and with the sheer size of the whole apparatus.
Governments in Canada, including this one, spend millions of dollars on public opinion polls, including referenda, but don't seem to understand the most obvious messages from the public. To me, those messages are clear. They are concerned about the economy, the size of government and high taxes. That's their number one concern.
Canada is a longitudinal lesson in unbalanced government: an artificially manufactured federal state, which makes less practical sense than most other of the world's nations. But we're stuck with it, and we love it for what it is. But does that mean that we have to have the most governed of the G-7 states? Does it mean that our federal cabinet has to have more members in its cabinet than the United States, with ten times our population? Or does it mean that on a per capita basis, this country has more government than any other country in the world?
How did it get to this? It was not too long ago that the provinces functioned with a small set of ministries, conforming to their defined responsibilities under the BNA Act, and the federal government met around an ordinary boardroom table. We all know that it is not like that today. The public has had enough. The public wants less government and a lot less bureaucracy. That's what the tax revolts we've seen recently are all about.
What can we in British Columbia do to change this situation? We could talk to the federal government and other provincial governments about how we could reduce size. That does not mean defend turf; it means reduce. Perhaps a suggestion might be that we don't need three levels of government; maybe two would work. Perhaps we only need a federal government and municipal governments in this country. Perhaps a suggestion might be the reduction in the number of federal members, rather than an expansion, as suggested by the 1991 census figures. We need to downsize cabinet and trim government. Perhaps a suggestion might be the total realignment of provincial boundaries to form more realistic mutual interest groupings. In addition, we need to eliminate overlapping between provincial and federal responsibilities.
While I'm making revolutionary statements concerning the federal government, I'd like to make some revolutionary statements and suggestions about the organization of this government. Provincially, the public has had it with overlapping federal and provincial jurisdictions. It's time for politicians to stop defending their jurisdiction and start working for the public benefit. We have grown up with a parliamentary system which, while evolving over time, fails to recognize that the sum total of the world's knowledge doubles every ten years and that modern communications have overtaken many of our cherished institutions. I would like to suggest that this Legislature initiate some radical changes.
Once the election -- an election, for example that has been conducted by phone or mail -- has taken place: one, the party should form a cabinet in proportion to the number of seats, composed of a coalition of the best brains in the House; two, the three leaders of the parties should form a troika, with the cabinet advising them; and three legislative committees should be involved in the drafting and preparation of legislation.
I would suggest that all legislative committees should elect their own Chair, irrespective of party; that all MLAs should have specific legislative and committee responsibilities; that a reduced number of MLAs, with adequate staff in their constituencies and in the Legislature, should cope with local government, constituents and legislative responsibilities; that government decision-making should be pushed down in the bureaucracy, to be as close to the recipient as possible; that cabinet be reduced; that Treasury Board be all-party; that senior bureaucrats be paid a salary and a bonus; that we should open the budget process, and the budget should be debated in the Legislature before it's implemented; that the estimates be debated prior to the budget in order to give budgets more validity and a clear basis; and that the jurisdictional line between the municipal and provincial governments should be reviewed.
As far as the municipal governments are concerned, this closest-to-home government is best understood by the public and the one that delivers the most direct service. It is the poor relation of all governments. The bottom of the political ladder needs help and sustenance. The changes suggested include the following. The former government attempted to gerrymander the regional process. It was theoretically correct, in that there exists a need to reduce the areas of authority so that they are as close as possible to the people. Just as Canada reduces to its provinces, so the provinces should reduce to their regions and the regions should reduce to the municipalities.
I would suggest some utilization of the MLA in the regional and municipal governments, giving the MLA more input and the municipality more power. I think there should be a review of municipal boundaries to make them more practical, instead of having some artificial line drawn on a map and turf to be defended
[ Page 7486 ]
by local politicians. There should be a rationalization of the regional government and the present regional districts, which are neither fish nor fowl; an understanding that aboriginal governments are about to become a reality in this province; and a recognition that the municipal governments will bear the brunt of the changes and need help.
Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that the allotted time has expired.
P. Ramsey: I guess I found one thing that I can agree with the hon. member opposite on. In the referendum of last fall, there was a lot of discontent among the electorate with government and politicians of all political stripes and parties. But I draw a very different message from the concerns I am hearing from my constituents about government, taxes and all those things. At the same time that people say they feel overtaxed, they also say they need more services. The same poll that says we should look at restraining increases in taxes says we need more education, more health services and more of the things that are provided by government. I'd ask the hon. member: if we are going to accede to this and reduce all this government, which services is he prepared to cut? We have seen some reductions and redirections in health care in the city of Vancouver, in my part of the province and elsewhere. It has caused a great deal of concern. We see too many students chasing too few spaces in some of our colleges and universities. Is he prepared to cut those further and tell more people to go away? Is he prepared to turn away people who need help with English as a second language in the public schools in Vancouver -- or in my part of the province, where the dropout rate is 50 percent higher than the provincial average?
When I talk and think about government reorganization, I think people want to see measures that will make government more open, ensure that it is fair and ensure accountability for their tax dollars that they turn over to government. Those are the directions toward which this Legislature ought to be striving. Last year we introduced and passed in this Legislature the Freedom of Information Act, which I have heard called the best on this continent. We said very clearly -- and I think all parties agreed -- that once you have respect for individual privacy, all other operations of government should be as open as possible to the people who pay for it. We have been operating in this province for almost a year as if that legislation had already been proclaimed. This October it will come into effect for direct government operations, and a new level of openness will be there for the people of British Columbia. In the fall of '94 that openness will be extended to the operations of municipalities, school districts, colleges and hospitals. That's the sort of reorganization of government that makes a difference to people and lets them know what is being done within the government that they're paying for.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The second principle that people want their government to operate under -- and they have a right to expect this from their government -- is that of fairness. When they take their concern or their issue to government, they want to know that it is being considered on its merits within the laws and regulations of the province and without political interference. That's why I was very pleased earlier this session when we expanded the role of the ombudsman in this province to look at and have a right to oversee the operations of government and assure that fairness is a principle of government operations not just in the direct public service, which is what the Ombudsman Act currently covers, but also in colleges, school districts, municipalities -- those instruments of government that people deal with most directly every day of their lives. That is fairness; those are the measures that can increase fairness.
The third principle that people have a right to expect is accountability for how their tax dollars are spent -- whether we're looking at the results of the Korbin commission, which is looking at this huge, hidden civil service of some 15,000 contract employees who are operating out there without adequate supervision or accountability and reporting to us on how we can bring those back in, or whether we're looking at moving government operations closer to the communities through a health care initiative such as Closer to Home, which will set up community health councils and regional health boards to let people feel more accountable for what is being done in their communities. That's the sort of government reorganization that people expect.
[11:00]
When I hear the member opposite talk about less government, less this and less that, I have to say that the only other people I have heard talk about that were some members of the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union. They are the only ones who believe that government can somehow dry up and wither away. We need to ensure that our government operations are open, fair and accountable. Those are the principles, rather than this bean-counting -- I guess I'd have to call it -- approach that less is always better and more is always bad.
C. Tanner: I got the response from the other side that I expected: everything's copacetic. Let's not make any changes. Let's just play around with the detail. Leave it alone, and it will lumber on in its inefficient fashion. I don't think that's what the public is saying to us. In last year's referendum -- a question that I was on the wrong side of, according to the public, so I guess I have the right to make this criticism -- I don't think the public were saying to us that they disagreed with what was being suggested. I think they were saying that we were wrong. I think the public want fundamental change. I think the public want participation. More than anything else, I believe that they want to see us do things differently than we've done them up to now.
In every generation there are minor changes, but I think we're at a crossroads in our life in this country and on this planet where we've got to make
[ Page 7487 ]
fundamental changes. Frankly, I think some of the changes have to be made in the public's attitude towards government. They've got to realize that if they want all of these services that every member on the other side is always promoting, they're going to pay through the nose, and somewhere along the line there will come a point where you cannot afford it anymore. We need open government, and I congratulate this government for bringing in the Freedom of Information Act, particularly the member for Burnaby North. I think that sort of information is going to help to some extent, but it's too little too late. The public want to see us performing those things that we're elected to do, where they can see some direct benefit to themselves and not necessarily a benefit to each other
We're in the situation now where unless we make some basic changes we're going to pay the price, I think within the next ten years. Fellow members, I have deliberately suggested massive changes because I think we're losing it with the public. With our present methods and what I consider our indifference, and by the attitude that I've seen in this House in the last 18 months since we've been in residence, I don't think we're anywhere near a solution to the basic structural problems that we have in our lives today.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before we hear the final private member's statement, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be with us shortly.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1993
Income Tax Amendment Act, 1993
Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Fire Services Amendment Act, 1993
Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993
Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Railway Amendment Act, 1993
Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993
Bonding Act Independent School Amendment Act, 1993
Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1993
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Forest Amendment Act, 1993
Foresters Amendment Act, 1993
Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993
Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1993.
Clerk of the House: In her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
WORKERS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
D. Streifel: I rise this morning to speak on a part of the trade union movement that few understand, few realize exists and some even refuse to admit exists. It's the social responsibility commitment that workers have through their labour organizations to the communities they live in.
In this particular instance I want to talk about the efforts of the working women and men of UFCW, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518. It numbers some 22,000 members in B.C. I joined this union in 1961 as a part-time worker for Super-Valu, and I stayed with them until I was elected. I worked for two different companies, Super-Valu and Safeway, and I worked on staff as a union rep. It has left a very emotional mark on me, in part for the opportunity that I had to participate with this local union as they carried out fundraising for leukemia research. I want to bring forward to the chamber today what the organizational abilities and commitment to a cause by this local has meant to the lives of thousands of individuals and their families across the province, across the country and internationally.
Members of the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union began raising money and awareness for leukemia research in 1984. A number of events were held throughout North America that year. Initially, UFCW-raised funds were donated to the Leukemia Society of America, which also funded research in Canada. By 1989 Canadian members of the union began making contributions directly to the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada, a registered Canadian charity. In 1992 United Food and Commercial Workers' members in Canada raised a record amount, in excess of $400,000 for leukemia research, bringing the total raised in Canada since 1984 to more than $1.8 million, all raised by working men and women of this local union. Throughout North America the money raised has also increased steadily year by year. A $1.4 million contribution in 1992 brought the total since 1984 to nearly $6 million in North America directly funding leukemia research.
Fundraising activities include the annual walkathons in Victoria, Prince George and Burnaby every June, in which members, families and friends stroll and run -- and in the case of this member, usually pants -- around the course and then picnic with their friends in an effort to collect pledges. There's a wide-ranging list of special events from an across-B.C. torch run, a boxing match in Toronto, T-shirt sales in Montreal, a dunk tank in Burlington, Ontario, a rockathon in Saint John, New
[ Page 7488 ]
Brunswick, and a fishing derby in Manitoba, among other events.
Let me just say a few words about this year's annual across-B.C. torch relay. The relay began in Mackenzie, travelled to the Chilcotin, the Cariboo, the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and culminated some weeks later in the annual walkathon in Burnaby, which I recall you participated in this year, hon. Speaker, as the member for Burnaby North participated in in the past. The hon. Minister of Government Services participated in a ceremony in Prince George, and other members of this chamber have participated across this province in efforts to raise funds for leukemia research.
This run would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of corporate sponsors, including Overwaitea Foods, Canada Safeway, IGA, Coca-Cola, and companies like Westminster Auto Leasing, who provided a vehicle to accompany the torch run from Mackenzie to the coast. These events are coordinated by hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated volunteers in British Columbia. While an exact count is impossible, it is estimated that at least 3,000 participants are involved in all the events across the province.
I want to say a few words about the recent advancements in cancer research and about how the money is raised and where it goes in our province. British Columbia, as many of us are aware, is a leader in the fight against cancer. The Terry Fox Laboratory is recognized worldwide for its leukemia research. In 1983 the lab made headlines internationally with the discovery of an alternative treatment for leukemia. The process is called autologous bone marrow transplants with culture purging, a life-giving technique introduced by Vancouver hematologist Dr. Allen Eaves, and Dr. Connie Eaves, a cell biologist. I believe Dr. Connie Eaves is known as one of the cell's angels.
The treatment involves removing bone marrow from the cancer patient and treating it under lab supervision. The patient then goes through intense chemotherapy and radiation. The treated marrow is then injected back into the body. If this revolutionary treatment eventually proves applicable to all types of leukemia, it could eliminate the needle-in-the-haystack searches for bone marrow matches that have become a sad staple for news reporting. Any bone marrow transplant itself is a harrowing, painful experience, largely because of the barrage of chemotherapy that the patient must undergo the week before. To quote Dr. Eaves: "These treatments are awful. I mean, I really can't tell you how painful they are. You bring the person to the point of death. It's pushing chemotherapy to its limit and beyond."
Advances such as the work carried on by those doctors provide us with the impetus, the motivation and the strength to fight on. Almost all of us have had a relative or a friend stricken with cancer. We understand the pain and suffering, but we must all pull together to create awareness. The efforts of our brothers and sisters of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union and their employers is just one example. Only if we all pull together, both workers and employers, can we achieve what it will take to beat cancer.
D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Jarvis: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to introduce in the gallery 55 grades 5 and 6 students from Beach Grove Elementary School in Tsawwassen and their teacher, Dr. Neufeld.
[11:15]
The Speaker: In response to the private member's statement, the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.
L. Hanson: The title of the member's statement was a little misleading, in the sense that I had expected something slightly different. The member for Mission-Kent has outlined a happening in our society, not only in British Columbia but in Canada, that I think we can all be very proud of. The many organizations that contribute to the advances that we have made -- not only in the treatment of diseases and the cures that have been discovered through that process -- have without doubt been largely due to volunteer interest by society, by the fund-raising process that different organizations go through and by the dedication of individuals' time to these initiatives.
Without a doubt, the whole of this House and the whole of British Columbia would applaud the efforts of organizations such as those the member described. One of the things that makes our society one we can all be proud of, and a society that I think is envied in many parts of the world, is the efforts of our citizens, whether as individuals or as part of an organization, not only to raise funds for particular purposes but also to bring these difficulties to the public's attention -- to publicize various initiatives that need to be researched and examined and for which solutions need to be found. I would join with the member who made the statement congratulating the United Food and Commercial Workers on their efforts. I would also congratulate the firefighters, the Kinsmen, the Kiwanis clubs and all of the people who put the effort into helping us resolve some of the problems that humanity faces.
L. Fox: I take this opportunity to contribute to this private member's statement. It's one that is certainly dear to my heart, having worked with societies, groups and service clubs to try to meet two objectives. One objective obviously is the funds needed to help individuals in very difficult circumstances. The other very important issue in this thrust is to provide public information as to the concerns facing individuals, whether it be an illness, paraplegic problems or, as the member pointed out, leukemia research. One of the main objectives of this kind of exercise is public awareness of the needs of the specific group that the particular organization has decided to throw its support behind.
I welcome the opportunity to recognize the important role played in today's society by groups such as the one mentioned by the member for Mission-Kent. As a community we used to help one another in a lot more obvious ways than we do today. Neighbours used to
[ Page 7489 ]
help each other, but with today's busy lives, that's one thing our society seems to have lost. It's groups such as the one mentioned by the member for Mission-Kent that help us to recognize that we're all citizens of British Columbia, and we should all have the goal of helping thy neighbour.
D. Streifel: I thank my colleagues, the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Prince George-Omineca, for their support of my statement. I look forward to their advanced support next June when the walkathons carry on and they show up with chequebook in hand.
The comments by the member for Okanagan-Vernon are germane to this issue. It's not only the work that groups like United Food and Commercial Workers do. Other groups such as charitable organizations have stepped in to fill a void. With ever-increasing competition for the hard-earned tax dollar, it becomes more and more difficult for governments to supply all of the goods and services and commitments required by communities. With their work, United Food and Commercial Workers and other trade unions, service clubs and charitable organizations are stepping in to fill that void.
The organization that I worked with, and worked with very proudly for so many years, is now under the able stewardship of president and chief executive officer Brooke Sundin and secretary-treasurer Jack Allard, with the full cooperation of their whole executive board, which has representatives from all over the province. In particular, one of their vice-presidents, Bob Adams, a clerk at Super-Valu in Park Royal in North Vancouver, has for many years spent thousands and thousands of hours organizing and stewarding the leukemia walkathon efforts in British Columbia. Additional funding in support of cancer research is absolutely critical as we reach ever closer to finding a cure for cancer. The dedication and hard work of the workers of United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union, Local 1518, in cooperation with their employers, is filling this gap. Their work in this effort is truly commendable. I encourage all hon. members in this House to support these efforts and watch for the walkathon, the run and the torch run when they come through your community next June. I look forward to your support at that time.
W. Hurd: I wish to table a letter, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Briefly, what is the subject of the letter, hon. member?
W. Hurd: The letter was sent this morning by my office to Mr. Ace Henderson, the special prosecutor in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society investigation.
Leave granted.
Hon. B. Barlee: I call Committee of Supply B.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
R. Chisholm: Before we start, I'd like to make an introduction so that we have it out of the way and it doesn't interfere with the estimates.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I'd like the House to welcome Miss M. Wood, a teacher from Greendale Elementary, and 27 students who are in the precinct today to learn about our democratic system and the parliamentary system we operate under. They are here to have a good day in Victoria. Would you make them most welcome, please.
On vote 14: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
R. Chisholm: Yesterday we ended up by talking about some of the interprovincial barriers that are imposed by the provinces on each other and barriers that the province imposes on itself. I left you with a question regarding the 13 percent tax hike on the British Columbia side of the border vis-�-vis Alberta. This is a self-imposed provincial barrier. I'm just wondering if you are talking to the Finance minister to see if we can decrease the barriers we are imposing on ourselves, because they're rather detrimental to the farming community, especially to grain growers in the northeast of the province. If we're not going to take care of our self-imposed provincial barriers, I find it highly unlikely that we're going take care of the ones we impose on other provinces.
Hon. B. Barlee: The interprovincial barriers are being examined under federal-provincial relations. The lead ministry there, both federally and provincially, is Trade, but it does impact significantly on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So this comes up in interprovincial discussions. In fact, in about 12 days this will be on the agenda again. We have made some progress in eliminating some of the interprovincial barriers. This is a continuing process. We think there should be a level playing field right across Canada so that it doesn't leave any farmers at risk, including our own. This is one of the lead items in the next interprovincial Agriculture ministers meeting, which will take place in Charlottetown in about ten days.
R. Chisholm: It is good that we are confronting the interprovincial barriers. The other part of that question was the 13 percent higher taxes that we have in British Columbia versus Alberta. These are self-imposed barriers. Are you having discussions with the Finance minister and various ministries to see if we can lessen these tax impositions on our farmers and possibly level the playing field somewhat ourselves?
[ Page 7490 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: We've been working with a number of provinces to reduce both our own tax barriers and theirs. We've had some success, most definitely. In Alberta, our neighbouring province and a competitor in some areas, they have removed a significant number of barriers that were in place about a year and a half ago. There is ongoing discussion among the western provinces as well as among the provinces all across Canada, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
R. Chisholm: I will try this once more. I'm talking about the British Columbia taxation ministry -- in other words, our Ministry of Finance, of which the Hon. Glen Clark is the minister. We have 13 percent higher taxes in British Columbia than Alberta. Are we looking at our own taxation policies in reference to the farmers in B.C.'s northeast and Okanagan areas? This 13 percent is a self-imposed provincial barrier. We are not levelling the playing field within our own province, let alone outside. Are you discussing it with the Minister of Finance to see if we can lower some of these taxes?
Hon. B. Barlee: Could he be more precise on the 13 percent?
R. Chisholm: The 13 percent is an amalgamation of various taxes, such as water, Crown lands, fuel and so forth. It is a combination of all taxes. If you total and average them out, we're 13 percent higher than Alberta, which naturally does not level the playing field between Alberta farmers and British Columbia farmers. If we started cleaning up our own house, we would possibly have a better chance of cleaning up the rest.
[11:30]
The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. minister, I would caution the committee. Obviously there are some aspects of taxation policy that are germane to the ministry; however, the member would best put most of his concerns to the Minister of Finance. The Chair will be monitoring the process very carefully to ensure that we are in order.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member for Chilliwack is concerned about something that is not impacting heavily on the farmers of British Columbia. We have between 19,000 and 20,000 farmers in British Columbia. We had precisely ten bankruptcies. That's one out of 2,000 farmers -- none in the northeast, by the way. Our ten bankruptcies is the lowest rate in Canada. The average increase in net income for the farmers of British Columbia in 1991 was 21 percent, the highest in the country. The highest increase in 1992 was again from British Columbia: 24 percent. You are discussing something, first of all, that does not come directly under my aegis. We do indeed have ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Finance, but the farming committee in British Columbia happens to be in very good shape. The average bankruptcies prior to 1991 and 1992 -- and I see the member from the north looking at me questioningly -- was 30 under the previous government. We've brought it down to a third of that bankruptcy rate, which is not bad at all. You can examine the figures: 1992, 10; 1991, 15; prior to that, an average of 30.
R. Chisholm: The first point I questioned was whether there were ongoing negotiations between the Minister of Finance and this ministry to see if they can change these taxation policies to the betterment of the farming community. The question was not out of his jurisdiction; it was a question of whether the conversations were ongoing.
The second part is that you are saying that it doesn't affect the farmer. If you take a look at your own documentation, hon. minister, you have put out documents that say 100-head cattle farms are going to have a decrease of 18 percent and 300-head cattle farms will have a decrease of 19 percent due to fuel costs, Crown fees, the corporation capital tax and water taxes.
These are self-imposed provincial barriers. They make our pricing and costs that much higher than in Alberta. If we take a look south, we are twice as high as the state of Washington and some of the other states further south. My concern is that we are putting ourselves out of business. You might want to say that nobody has gone bankrupt, but that is not because of what we are doing but in spite of ourselves. It's time that we looked at our own policies and how we control this. I'm asking you if this ministry is talking with the Ministry of Finance and with the Ministry of Forests, who has control over some of the Crown lands and what not, and is trying to come up with an equitable system so that taxation policies keep us competitive with our surrounding jurisdictions.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are, of course, discussions going on with three ministries that have a cross-impact upon Agriculture. The member will note that the corporation capital tax ceiling was jumped up another $250,000 last year, which saves harmless other 230 farms, 20 fishers and 20 food processors. The member has not listened very carefully, because if we were in such bad shape -- which we are not -- we would have a significantly higher bankruptcy rate. It is the lowest in the country.
Our farmers are generally doing very well. There are always exceptions. Under my aegis I have 280 commodities. About seven of those are in what we call the danger zone, but the other 270-odd are doing fairly well. We have some trouble in the Peace River district; we have some trouble in other areas, but we are addressing that with a long-term strategy.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to enter into the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.
I am alarmed, quite frankly, that the minister will not admit that the industry has some difficulties. It concerns me. I can't talk for the lower Fraser Valley farmers; I'll leave that to the member for Chilliwack. But certainly when I talk to the ranchers within Prince George-Omineca and the Nechako Valley, I'm getting a different story than what the minister is suggesting.
When we look at the litany of fee increases and the other issues facing the ranching and farming communities within my constituency, the competitiveness of
[ Page 7491 ]
my area versus the other regions of Canada and the United States is indeed being undermined. Just for the record -- and I know the minister has received several of these letters, as I have, from my constituents -- some of the negative impacts on the ranching and farming communities within my region are increased grazing fees, increased water licensing fees, Crown range administration fees, increased brand inspection fees, corporation capital tax, new burning regulations, a new code of agricultural practice for waste Management, new silviculture regulations, proposed new water management rules and regulations, protected-areas strategies, proposed new watershed management guidelines, wildlife management areas, the proposed endangered species act, proposed endangered species regulations, the Workers' Compensation Board regulations and of course the concern about aboriginal land claims. Those are just a few of the negative influences on the ranching and farming communities within my region.
Earlier the minister suggested that the agriculture community is in good shape because the bankruptcy rate is down. He should look very carefully at the whole picture. If it weren't for the farmers working at individual jobs and subsidizing their farms, we wouldn't have an agriculture community in the Nechako valley. The fact of the matter is that most of them have to work off the farm even more than they did previously to meet the negative impact of this litany of new regulations and fees that have been placed on the agriculture community within my region and across the province. It's a major concern to that agricultural community. We have seen very little dialogue by the minister with the ranching community in my region.
The other concern we have to look at here -- and it's similar to the concern I pointed out to the Small Business and Economic Development minister -- is that this minister has a responsibility to stand up in cabinet and speak loud and clear as an advocate for the agricultural community of B.C. I don't believe he's done that. If we look at the litany of negative impacts that this government has placed on the agriculture community, we see that this minister has not represented the interests of that community very well at the cabinet table. I allow the minister to respond.
Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member talks about advocacy. I was in Prince George last month. I didn't notice you there.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I always went when I was a critic. There were 52 cattlemen in that organization. We had a meeting of 154 people. They were all there. It was a marvellous meeting. In fact, if the member listened to the radio the next day, we were congratulated on a number of different things.
You mentioned the WCB in some of these regulations. Workers' Compensation Board had ongoing negotiations with the BCCA. One of the leading negotiators in that was Larry Campbell, a noted cattleman from the Kamloops area. They asked: "Will this do?" They came to a conclusion that this was fair legislation.
The member talked about grazing fees. Well, grazing fees have been frozen. The member talked about water fees. Water fees have been frozen. The member talked about the burning regulations. That burning regulation has changed completely. So many of the things you addressed are either not on the table, have been frozen or have changed. Again, the member talked about advocacy. Well, if you were so concerned about the cattlemen, you should have been there at their annual general meeting in Williams Lake when I addressed 400 of them. I was there; I'm always there. I have a lot of time for the cattlemen. In fact, if the members wish to visit my home in Osoyoos, right on my fireplace is the old family branding iron from the 1890s.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well I could invite you to eat, but I certainly couldn't pay the liquor bill.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. B. Barlee: What I'm saying is this -- and the member is correct -- there are areas we are addressing. There are areas we have to watch very closely. This is one of those seven or eight areas of concern.
When I go up into Prince George or Williams Lake, that's why I stop off and see the farmers. I dropped off in the Nicola country just a few months ago. A rancher was fixing a fence. I went over -- I was dressed in blue jeans at the time -- and said: "I'm Minister of Agriculture." He said: "The hell you say. I haven't seen a Minister of Agriculture for the 40 years I've been on this farm." He was astounded. So I get into those ranches, into the orchards and into the dairy farms. I'm on the go all the time. I make contact with them, and there are some concerns. I am an advocate for them, and I think the member will agree that I'm a good advocate for them. The results are very good; they're not perfect. It's never perfect in the agricultural region, because you're depending upon the weather -- too much rain, too much sun, early frost, late frost. So we can't cure them all, but out of the 280 commodities, we're doing well in 272. That's pretty good. It isn't perfect, and we will address the other seven that we're having some problems with. This is one of the seven or eight.
L. Fox: I'm pleased with the minister's answer and his obvious excitement because he stopped in and saw a farmer in the Nicola Valley. That's good stuff. I really appreciate that he did that, and I'm sure that farmer does.
But the other factor in this is that while this minister has been in charge, we have seen 6 percent increases in the land taxes of two years ago on farming communities. We've seen another increase this year of about 8 percent. The fact of the matter is that those farmers, at least the ones in my region of the province, can't afford to pay those kinds of increases. They are substantial coming at a time when, without subsidizing their farms by working in industry or elsewhere, their
[ Page 7492 ]
bottom line would be extremely red. It's a concern that I've never heard a lot about from this minister. Rather than supporting the Minister of Finance in those taxation measures, he should be saying: "We've got to look at alternatives to taxation of farming, such as decreasing the costs of government." That is where I believe the minister's advocacy role should be more apparent.
[11:45]
It's a real concern to the farming community that.... Historically, farmers have been very kind. You have to get them really upset before they come out and start to parade on the doorsteps. Most of them are too busy to come to Victoria and probably can't afford to make the trek down here to make the minister aware. I've invited the minister to my region, and I know he has suggested he is willing at some point to come. I leave that invitation open, and I will gladly make my community of farmers available to him. I know they would really like to come and make presentations to the minister to show him firsthand the difficulties they're facing in the Nechako region.
Hon. B. Barlee: I accept it with great enjoyment and probably will enjoy the tour. The member is quite an entertaining companion, from what I hear from this side of the House. The member did, however, say that I saw a farmer. Well, last month I went to 21 major meetings. I worked the 31 days in the month, by the way -- which is fine; that's my decision. Over those 31 days and 21 meetings, I met 3,288 people; and out of those 3,288 people, 874 were in the farming community. They were ranchers, farmers, 4-H clubs. So I keep fairly good track of the industry. I think the member acknowledges that.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: You could go to Prince George and talk to the 154 people who were at that meeting; then you could go down to Williams Lake -- there were about 405 there; and then to the national meeting of 4-H clubs in Penticton -- that was 124. Do you want to give up now? Do you surrender? Okay.
The member brought up some salient points. I rather enjoy the cross-corridor conversations and debate. We acknowledge that there are areas -- and that's why I accept your invitation -- we have to look at, and I'm not reluctant to do that. There are areas where we accept criticism, both from the farming community and from members on the other side. That's part of the give-and-take of politics, and that's what we need in government. I don't mind a good advocate. I try to be a good advocate. I probably don't do everything perfectly, but no one can accuse me of not representing the industry. If you write Lita Salanski, the head of the cattlemen -- she still calls herself a cattleman -- I think you will find that they will acknowledge that I represent the industry extremely well.
R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions regarding that dialogue. I think we're a far cry from NAFTA and GATT.
Why did we bring in these fire regulations only to turn around and change them? Why were they not discussed and studied before they were brought in and put into effect? Now we have to back-pedal and go soft on the fire regulations. I would have thought that we would have put a bit more effort into them before we drew up the rules and regulations for people to abide by.
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe that the member was referring to the burning regulations, and we were just discussing that with the member for Prince George-Omineca. The burning regulations are of course under the Ministry of Environment. We have ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Environment regarding the impact on various sectors of the agriculture community. That legislation is changing significantly.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the answer. But that is exactly my point. Ministries are bringing in taxes or regulations, communication is a problem, and the next thing we know, we have to back-pedal on the regulations. We have to either take them off the books or, as you put it, go soft on them.
It's amazing that this minister is denying that the farmers are having problems. It's also amazing how his tune changed once he became the Minister of Agriculture. Let me remind the minister of when he was in opposition a few short months ago. If he looks at Hansard, he will clearly see that he admitted that farmers are going bankrupt. When you became a minister of the government, your tune didn't change. The decisions have not been made to change that.
I'll quote from one of your ministry documents. You will probably remember this one, because I've used it before. We're talking about cattlemen, about British Columbia's northeast, about inequities and about why our farmers are going bankrupt -- whether or not you want to deny it now that you're minister. Briefing notes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talk about new revenue measures affecting ranching. They state what is going to be taxed, how much is going to come into the government and how many cattlemen it will affect. Overall it's going to affect in the vicinity of 7,000 cattlemen, but that will be duplicated because of the different taxes. They talk about irrigation fees, range administration fees, brand inspections, Crown leases, corporate capital tax and total revenues.
The document actually piecemeals what the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forests are doing to cattlemen. It states that in 1991 the value of production was $74,220. In 1993 it was expected to go up to a whopping $75,000. This is with a 100-cow ranch. They estimated what your taxes were going to do to them. Irrigation fees went up by 56 percent, range fee permits by 24 percent, range administration by $25, brand inspections by 7 percent, Crown leases by 100 percent and corporate capital tax by 100 percent. The total increase in taxes for one year was projected to be $4,006 in 1993. It says that new fees will give them a net income of minus 11 percent. This is for an industry that has increased profits in one year by about $780. A 300-cattle ranch has a deficit of minus 19
[ Page 7493 ]
percent. These are your own figures. Their previous net of $187,800 is now $188,000. You say you have frozen these fees. That's fine, but they can't make a living now. They are all working off the farm to keep the farm going. That is a deplorable state for a farmer in this country to be in.
What I'm asking is: when are you and these ministries going to get together so that you can tax them equitably, not overtax them from Crown leases or from Forestry or from whoever is controlling the water this month or next month, from Agriculture and from the Minister of Finance? It's time you took a good look at how you are taxing these people. The corporate capital tax, for instance, is so detrimental to farming it is pathetic, yet you didn't talk to them; neither did the Minister of Finance. All we get is excuses. This tax doesn't hurt the individual farmer who has been there for 50 years; it hurts anybody who is going into it, because it taxes assets, it taxes debt, it taxes wealth -- it taxes absolutely everything. If you buy a farm for $3 million and you have to mortgage $2.5 million, you're being taxed on what you owe. That is not an incentive for any young person to get into farming. These are regressive taxes, and it's about time this government looked at them and decided what they're going to do to give incentives to agriculture and farmers to stay in this province and not to go bankrupt, like you say is not happening.
A few words in response would be appreciated, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: In the first sentence the member said that the farmers are going bankrupt. I wasn't exaggerating: the list of farmers going bankrupt in British Columbia is virtually nil. It's down to ten farmers out of 20,000 businesses. That's one bankruptcy out of 2,000 businesses. Nowhere else in the country will you get that rate; it simply doesn't exist. Examine the figures from Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are the lowest in the country. It isn't all perfect. Sometimes farmers are going to go bankrupt.
You mentioned a number of areas that the other member already mentioned, and I'll repeat it. Workers' compensation is under discussion with the minister. That consultation process was between the minister and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They okayed that legislation. You mentioned grazing fees. Grazing fees have been frozen. We are charging $1.83 per AUM -- animal unit month. In the state of Montana it's $7.05. We're charging the lowest rate, not only in Canada but in North America. If you can find any other jurisdiction where they even come close I will be astounded. The water fees have been frozen. And this is in tough economic times.
There is a decline in the economic output of virtually every province in Canada. This year we'll be running a deficit of $1.5 billion. Let's look at our nearest neighbour, Alberta. They have two-thirds of our population, and they're going to run a deficit of $3 billion unless they come in with some drastic taxes, which they probably will. But that's their projection. They have twice our deficit and they're only two-thirds our size, so quick mathematics says there's $3 of deficit in Alberta for every dollar we have here. So we have taken some measures.
I'm in constant consultation with every ministry, and if something impacts on the ministry we'll go back and look at it again. That's why they've been frozen, and that's why there are ongoing discussions among the various parties who are impacted. I suggest you write a letter to the head of the cattlemen, Lita Salanski, who's certainly not of my political persuasion. Like my old uncles, they're all Conservatives. A few are even Liberals -- astonishing. My old Uncle Billy was a marvellous guy. Billy Barlee owned much of what is now the city of Kelowna. He was a hidebound Conservative. He'd been an officer in the First World War, an officer in the Boer War....
C. Tanner: A developer.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, he wasn't a developer -- on the contrary. There are flaws in the family -- there are probably genetic flaws in the family -- but we are not developers. I think the member makes a mistake. There are very few land developers in British Columbia; there are a lot of land speculators. There's a great difference between development and speculation. They call themselves developers. I go into the meetings and say, "How are the land speculators?" and they don't take that too well. But that's what they are basically. They're not concerned that we retain this land.
The hon. member can relax. The farmers are doing pretty well. Compare the grazing fees with anywhere else in North America and we're still way lower -- by a fraction.
R. Chisholm: In your document dated December 2, 1992, you say that these fees are frozen. I'm glad that they're frozen; they're too much as they are. The irrigation fees you were talking about went from $96 to $151. Range fees went from $858 to $1,068. The range administration fee went from absolutely nothing to $25. Brand inspections went from $70 to $75. Crown leases went from $200 to $400. There was no such thing as a corporate capital tax; now it has been instituted, and it's $1,719. These are taxes that you imposed, and then supposedly you turned around and froze them in the last month. That really doesn't help the farmer who was in trouble a year ago -- the grain grower whose crop failed because of drought. Adding an extra $4,000 to their tax bill really didn't enhance that industry.
If you think you can tax yourself out of debt, hon. minister, you're sadly mistaken. As a matter of fact, what you've got to do is start paring down your bureaucracy. Invest that money in wealth-generating industries and ministries that maybe will start paying for some of the social services that you want. Take a look at the inequity of this system. Your ministry costs 75 percent of your budget; 22 percent to 25 percent actually goes to help the farmer in one form or another. We went through this two days ago, and you know it full well. The point I'm getting at, hon. minister, started with a very simple question: would you mind going over and talking to the other ministries? Stop alienating
[ Page 7494 ]
yourself in your ivory tower. Discuss this disastrous situation and come up with an equitable solution to a problem. We don't need these people going bankrupt. We don't need them going out of business. We need their industry, and we need them to pay taxes in order to pay your bills.
[12:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll have to go over this again, which is unfortunate. The hon. member for Chilliwack mentioned the brand increase. That was a 7 percent increase over two years; that's 3.5 percent per year. That's about the cost of living. It's not a significant increase. I mentioned the grazing fees -- the lowest in North America. The member mentioned that we should reduce our bureaucracy, and indeed we have. About five years ago the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food had 730 employees. We now have 491. That's a significant reduction -- over 30 percent.
L. Fox: How many since you were in power?
Hon. B. Barlee: Two years ago? I'll answer that question too. Two years ago our budget was a $113 million; now it's $89 million. We're such good managers that despite coming down 21 percent, we have a long-range vision of farming. The farmers' income is going up. There are areas we are concerned about.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: It is going up. All you have to do is check the federal records. There's no doubt about it at all. Despite the decline in the bureaucracy and funding of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the bankruptcy rate of the farming community is going down and their net income is coming up. What you should be doing is saying: "My heavens, Mr. Minister, you're doing a pretty good job, really." I don't hear that from the other side and I'm rather surprised.
L. Fox: I find this a very entertaining morning. I hadn't taken part in these estimates previously, but I think I'm going to find myself sitting in on them more often.
I want to just change a bit. I have two or three more questions I'd like to ask. One is of great concern to a lot of farmers in my region. Before I ask the question, I do want to agree that in some areas of the agricultural industry, the farms are doing reasonably well. I understand the dairy farmers are doing quite well and the ranchers, because of the price, are actually doing quite well. But the actual farmers, the hay producers and those kinds of people, are the individuals that I'm talking about.
However, I wanted to ask a very sincere concern about the ranches and farms in my area. What role will the minister be playing, if any, in the upcoming land claims process? Will the ministry have third-party status or will he be insisting that the industry itself has third-party status in the process of discussing the land claims?
Hon. A. Hagen: If I might just leave the Minister of Agriculture a moment to reflect on his answer, I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's a great pleasure for me to once again welcome students from Lord Kelvin Elementary School in New Westminster. They are actually neighbours to my constituency office. I'm told by their teacher, Mr. Wright, that this is the seventeenth year that the grade 7 class from Lord Kelvin has been coming over to have a very long and exciting tour of Victoria. I'd like to ask all of us here today to welcome them. They know there aren't many people here on a Friday because many members have gone back to their ridings, but they have been studying our provincial government system and I know they're very interested in the debate on agriculture that's going on today. Welcome students, Mr. Wright, and the parents who have accompanied you.
Hon. B. Barlee: Good question. There was a meeting several months ago with the federal government. Essentially, the aboriginal affairs areas of concern are driven by the federal government, in consultation with the provincial government, which is in consultation with the first nations. In the provincial government, the driving ministry is the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; however, we do have people at the table. I am a visiting guest minister when it impacts on agriculture. We have other assistant deputy ministers and directors at the table to make sure that agriculture is part of the consultative process.
This is a slow process, as the member well knows. It will probably take years. It's a process that ranges from the far north all the way across the province -- into the interior, on the coast and so on. These negotiations are careful negotiations. They go back in B.C. prior to 1860, so it's been 130-odd years. We are a party at the table but we do not drive those negotiations, as the member well knows.
L. Fox: I think our Leader of the Third Party expressed it quite well during second reading debate on the Treaty Commission Act and certainly during the committee stage. One of the concerns we have -- certainly that I and the farmers have -- is whether or not there will be a process for dialogue between the minister and the agricultural community on issues that have a direct effect on the agricultural community and that come up around the negotiating table. The minister has already stated that he's going to be part of the negotiating process representing the government on agricultural issues. Can the minister give me and the farmers some assurance that there's going to be a mechanism in place for some open and honest dialogue with that agricultural community on issues that are being discussed at that negotiating table?
Hon. B. Barlee: Again, a good question. The third-party committee has had significant consultations. The member on the third-party committee is a
[ Page 7495 ]
rancher called Guy Rose, who comes from the Nicola Lake area -- the Quilchena ranch. It goes a way back to the 1880s. I have kind of a soft spot for that particular area, as the member well knows. I'm caught up in the history of B.C. and I've always had a weakness for that particular area. Guy Rose is a very good advocate for the cattlemen. He knows what he is talking about, as his father did before him and his grandfather before that. So he will be taking an active part and an important part in the consultative process. The third party is at the table, and indeed they should be, and their concerns will be listened to.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's answer. I don't know the individual referred to, but I take no issue with the minister on how he presents that individual to the House. But will Mr. Rose in fact have the opportunity to communicate those concerns and issues and the resolution of how those issues might be addressed to the rest of the agricultural community in B.C. so everybody has an understanding, not just Mr. Rose?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is his precise and exact role: to communicate what he learns at the third-party table to the other members of the agricultural community. He does not just represent the ranching community. So this is part of the process. I think it's a fairly good process. It isn't a perfect process, because each one of those players at the main table -- the federal government, provincial government and first nations -- have their own agenda. It's a difficult agenda. It's going to take a long time and tough negotiations. But I think the agricultural community is well represented with an individual like Guy Rose, who is articulate, intelligent and knows the community.
L. Fox: Just one further question and then I'll leave it at that. Given that Mr. Rose is from the Nicola Valley and that there may be some variation in concerns around the province, will he have the opportunity to be proactive in seeking concerns from the agricultural community that might give the minister ammunition or information with which to address the concerns of the agricultural ministry? In other words, will Mr. Rose's position be reactive or will he be able to go out and proactively communicate with the agricultural community and bring forward issues that the minister should consider during the third-party discussions?
Hon. B. Barlee: Guy Rose can and does communicate any time he wants, and we will assist him with any help he needs. He was chosen by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. Of course, the Cattlemen's Association ranges from the far north -- even beyond your area, from the Peace River district itself -- right down into the East Kootenay and Boundary country along the American border. That's why we're both rather interested in this: essentially it's the high interior, which has had cattle ranches since 1858. Generally speaking, we are running many more cattle now than we were running ten years ago. The prices have stayed relatively good; they're higher than I anticipated. They're certainly higher than the cattlemen anticipated, and the member alluded to that very briefly. We have good cattle, and we're doing quite well.
As I mentioned yesterday in one of my discussions with the member for Chilliwack, if you go across on the ferry today and eat hamburger or beef, that's British Columbia beef. We make sure that the food on that ferry is British Columbia food.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Not on the ferry it isn't. When you go down to the members' dining room here, you eat British Columbia beef. This is very important. So we're taking a long, broad perspective -- a holistic view of the thing. We're not just taking care of the cattlemen; we're taking care of the food. We're making sure that the food is bought in British Columbia as well and that it goes through these institutions controlled by the provincial government.
L. Fox: I was looking for a specific answer as to whether Mr. Rose was going to be allowed to be proactive in seeking out agricultural concerns that should be dealt with during the upcoming native land claims negotiations. I wasn't looking for a sermon on Buy B.C. I've already bought into that process, and I've always been a Buy B.C. advocate. Could the minister kindly keep his comments to whether or not Mr. Rose can be proactive in travelling around the province, listening to and addressing the concerns of the agricultural industry re the native land claims issue?
[12:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll give you a long and detailed answer: yes.
R. Chisholm: Just one more comment on the cattlemen, and then I hope we'll get back to GATT and other interesting things.
You were talking about the percentage increase, and I do want to remind you of one thing. The increase in profit last year for a 100-cattle farm was $800 and for a 300-cattle farm was $200. So I don't think your percentages really helped the farmers whatsoever.
You also brought up the person by the name of Salanski. I've got an article from the Williams Lake Tribune in which you're quoted. It says: "Ranchers are upset with the new fees and last month staged a phone-in campaign to MLAs protesting the fee increases." It goes on to say:
"'How can we produce if your government adds tax on tax on tax?' Barlee responded by saying issues that affect ranchers have to be prioritized. However, he is only one voice in a cabinet concerned with reducing the deficit. `I am slowly gaining some support. I have yet to get across to the cabinet that agriculture must not just survive but flourish.' Salanski sympathized with Barlee's plight but added something must be done soon.
"The fee increases affecting ranchers...."
D. Streifel: A point of order, hon. Chair. We've been in this chamber through our second session and third sitting. Some of the hon. members from the Liberal Party insist on referring to members of the
[ Page 7496 ]
chamber by their names, and it's not a standard practice of this House.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well taken; however, if the member was reading from an article, I think an exception is understandable. Would the member please proceed.
R. Chisholm: Considering that I am quoting verbatim from an article, the hon. member should understand that. Anyway, on with the quotation:
"The fee increases affecting ranchers come from several ministries which, [the hon. minister] said, worked against foreseeing the cumulative effect on the industry. 'Many of the other ministries are cross-hits. They have certain initiatives they carry forward. With a new government, sometimes it's hard to track all those until they arrive at the table.' He added that the government has a better overview now, but 'once in a while it doesn't hurt to have a second look'."
I'm just saying, hon. minister, it's time to have that second look, because you're going to put a business out of business if you don't watch it.
On July 23, 1990, in this House, the Minister of Agriculture, when opposition critic, acknowledged that there are sectors of the agricultural community at peril. He said that our past record on defence of articles under GATT had been very dismal. My question to the minister is: how does the minister plan to protect the farmers if GATT article XI is lost? Where is this budgeted for in the 1993-1994 budget, or is there nothing in the budget to possibly compensate on programs?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll repeat my answer of yesterday. The GATT, like the free trade agreement, is a multinational agreement. The GATT can impact upon our agricultural sectors. I was the only minister of agriculture in Canada who felt it was necessary to go to Ottawa to talk to the Conservative agricultural caucus, which I did for the first time in history. I then talked to the Liberal agricultural caucus, and they agreed as well. I also talked to the NDP agricultural caucus. Then we went over to Geneva and talked to the representatives of the various nations who are attacking article XI.2(c).
Article XI.2(c) is very important to us. We think that it should be clarified under the GATT, and that it should be strengthened. We do not produce the vast surpluses that all the other countries in the world do; because of our management process, we produce only what the market needs. Still we have the second-lowest per capita, per income prices for food in the world, only barely behind the United States, and I think our standards are higher. So we have done the job on the GATT.
I met with Michael Wilson, who just recently retired. I met with the Minister of Agriculture, Bill McKnight. I met with the Ambassador to Switzerland who, as it happens, is an old friend of mine, and I met with a number of individuals from other parts of the world. We didn't win that battle, because that was driven by Dunkel, who is an American. But that battle is not yet lost, because that process has been delayed until approximately the end of this year.
We hope that the GATT is not resolved.... Certainly the Americans have not fast-tracked it. On my delegation were members from the dairy industry, the poultry industry, the turkey industry, the egg sector and so on. So we were all there. We all attacked the American position and we managed to hold it off. We thought the GATT would have been resolved by now, partly because the backbone of the government of Canada stiffened after we went to see them in Ottawa. We were there when there were hundreds and hundreds of farmers on the lawn. We led the charge across the country.
R. Chisholm: I'm glad the minister is getting around the country quite a bit. I noticed his budget was $2 million for travel, so I guess that's part of the reason.
An Hon. Member: Shame, shame.
R. Chisholm: I know, it's shameful.
The provincial government must ensure that it produces programs for the agriculture industry that fall within the green area and are, therefore, GATT-friendly -- that is, if the GATT is passed. GATT has judged all programs as either red, amber or green. Most of B.C.'s present agriculture programs fall in the red or amber category and will, therefore, be disallowed by GATT. British Columbia needs the allowed green programs so our farmers will survive. Cost reduction programs or services which would enhance production are considered green programs. When the government pays income to farmers or tops up incomes, such as in B.C.'s present milk program, it falls into the red area. My questions to the Minister of Agriculture are: do you plan to implement green programs immediately to protect our farmers from future GATT negotiations? What will be the cost, and where is it included in the budget's estimates, if it is? How do you plan to revamp the milk quota system to make it green, if possible?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there was a proposed red, amber and green program. It's only proposed. That is what is being negotiated now. So there is no set red, amber and green. This essentially comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We have held the federal government's nose to the grindstone, and they understand our position perfectly. We have been superb advocates for the marketing boards and the supply management system. We have been very good advocates.
The member mentioned my predilection to travel. True, I do travel by plane -- I don't like travelling by plane. When I go back to my riding on the weekend -- and I go back every weekend almost without exception -- I take my own 1983 Toyota. I pay my own insurance, repairs and my own traffic tickets occasionally, which annoys me. So we are extremely careful. The member would perhaps like to ask which hotels I stay in. Well, I'll tell you which hotels I stay in. The last time I was in Creston -- and some of you actually know where Creston is -- the total bill....
Interjection.
[ Page 7497 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: The member says his wife is from Creston; he is aware of Creston. Creston is a beautiful little agricultural town in the West Kootenay district just across from an American town which is not quite as beautiful. So I went to Creston. I said, do I want to stay in a big hotel, or do I want to save tax money? I said, to hell with it, I will save tax money. The total bill in Creston -- and you can check the records -- was $23.60. That is not a lie. Last week....
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: Let's elaborate on this.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, it's quite important, because he asked me the question, hon. Chair. One more statement.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. I am fascinated by your excursions, and perhaps in the future we would find an opportunity to hear the rest of the story. But in the meantime I would urge the committee to try and stick to the minister's responsibilities.
R. Chisholm: Seeing the minister is so capable of taking care of his budget and saving money, maybe he can take those percentages -- of 75 percent to the bureaucracy and 25 percent to the farmers -- and adjust them in the upcoming year, too.
Let's get back to article XI of the GATT and all the niceties of the world. One issue was brought to my attention by the B.C. egg producers' association. They asked me to have you answer this question. I'll quote the question, as they asked it this way: "The increased competition for farmers of supply-managed commodities due to an agreement of the possible tariffication alternative.... Should tariffication result from a GATT agreement, will the government develop programs and provide financial support to maintain a viable agricultural industry?"
Hon. B. Barlee: The member is asking me a question about an agreement which does not exist. An agreement may be anticipated -- I may anticipate many things -- but there is not an agreement.
R. Chisholm: That will be really productive when I send it to the egg producers. The problem is that the agriculture industry is very concerned that there isn't any contingency plan -- or that you have not thought about what would happen if.... We realize that this has not happened yet, but what if it should happen? What are you going to do? What are your contingency plans to ensure agriculture does survive in different commodity groups? That is the question they're asking. Are you thinking in the long term, or are you just playing this day by day?
Hon. B. Barlee: The representatives of the industry were there with me in Geneva. They asked me to hold firm on article XI.2(c). I am doing precisely what they wanted; I am holding firm.
R. Chisholm: In a study commissioned by B.C. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, researchers expressed concern for the future of several British Columbia commodities -- i.e., cauliflower, strawberries and broccoli. Does this minister see an equitable solution for these farmers? Are there any plans about helping them diversify into other profitable commodities?
Hon. B. Barlee: It astounds me that the member would ask this question. All of those items will be impacted significantly by the NAFTA. Our party voted against the NAFTA. That party voted unanimously for it.
R. Chisholm: The biggest challenge for Canadian producers is the dramatic difference in production costs. Mexico has a well-established fruit and vegetable processing industry, largely because of its favourable growing conditions and low wages, which result in low raw-product costs. Although the costs of chemicals, fresh water and land are higher in Mexico, the harvest costs are much lower, and Mexican yields are more than twice those of B.C. This competition will be further magnified by NAFTA. Has the minister set apart funds to alleviate and adjust to this deal if it should happen? What does this minister envision as a solution to evening up the imbalance in this trade deal if it comes across?
Hon. B. Barlee: I am more astonished than I was two minutes ago. This member said that it would be further magnified by NAFTA. That member voted for NAFTA; we voted against NAFTA. These very commodities you mentioned will be impacted by the NAFTA, and you voted for it. I should be asking that question of you, but thank you for bringing it up.
R. Chisholm: We are free-traders and we are for NAFTA, but not the deal being struck right now, as the minister knows full well.
I must remind this minister that he happens to be the governing body. He is supposed to come up with the solution for the agriculture industry, and he's not doing a very good job. It's about time he started.
[12:30]
The Minister of Economic Development stated that he is worried about the impact of NAFTA, which will see Canada, the U.S. and Mexico become a giant free trade zone. He is especially concerned about its impact on British Columbia's fruit and vegetable processing with Mexico's cheap labour and low production costs. It will be virtually impossible for locally processed goods to compete, he says. Is this your opinion also, and what steps are you taking to protect our British Columbia farmers and processors from these economic imbalances?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is astounding! You are giving us all the reasons why we should have voted against it. We did vote against it. I'm surprised that
[ Page 7498 ]
the member did not vote against the NAFTA. You said: "We didn't like the deal the way it was." Why did you stand up and vote for it? We're going to have a tough time competing with Mexican labour at $1.25 per hour or 87-1/2 cents per hour. Those commodities you mention are all going to be impacted by NAFTA. So why did you vote for it?
R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister might want to realize that the NAFTA does not happen to be a provincial jurisdiction; it happens to be a federal jurisdiction. Maybe he had better realize that the actual vote on NAFTA comes at the federal level, with the federal parties. We can debate it here, but we have no input into it.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, what are you going to do if this comes through? What are you going to do to ensure that agriculture remains viable? What are you doing, just in case? Any contingency plans? It's a very simple thing I'm asking, hon. minister, and maybe the farmers would like an answer.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member says that NAFTA is not a provincial issue. When it impacts the farmers and fishers and food processors in British Columbia, it certainly is. You're talking about a federal issue. The NDP in the federal House voted against NAFTA, and the Liberals, as usual, don't know which way to jump -- whether to vote against it, or vote with their old friends and vote for it; or maybe they'll come down the middle. Indeed, they are coming down the middle, as we see from the latest communiqu�s from the federal Liberal Party. So you haven't decided which way you're going to go. They may think it might work; it may not -- same old stuff.
C. Tanner: It's obvious that the Minister of Agriculture is getting himself a little confused and in a little deep with that subject. So if I might, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the subject and ask the minister how much land has been let out of the ALR in the past year.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very good question, and I happen to have the figures in the back of my mind. The ALR is 11,500,000 acres, approximately. Out of that 11,500,000 acres, approximately 1,200 acres came out of the ALR. That is 0.001 percent. In a thousand years, we'll lose 1 percent. I think that's pretty good protection. This is landmark legislation.
C. Tanner: Was that one piece of property let out of the ALR all in one piece?
Hon. B. Barlee: I happen to have those figures in the back of my mind, as well. Approximately 1,200 applications were made last year. Only 100-odd were let through -- mostly small parcels, with some exceptions.
C. Tanner: Of the 12,000 applications and the....
Hon. B. Barlee: Twelve hundred.
C. Tanner: Twelve hundred. Actually the minister did say 12,000, I believe. But of the 1,200 applications, what recourse did those people have who didn't agree with the minister's decision? At what level was the cutoff?
Hon. B. Barlee: They have the recourse of appeal to cabinet at the present time. We will be blocking that appeal process in legislation coming down this year.
C. Tanner: In this session, can we anticipate a different appeal system for decisions made about ALR lands?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's prejudging legislation, but there will be a different mechanism.
C. Tanner: There has been a continuing complaint by a number of people in my constituency and other constituencies about the fact that they can't get an answer from the people who run the ALR as to what they do if they want to appeal. I think it's a very fair question to the minister. He should tell us who these people appeal to now, people who in the past had an appeal to cabinet.
Hon. B. Barlee: The appeal process is exactly the same at the present time. It will not change until new legislation comes down.
C. Tanner: The present system is an appeal to cabinet and a political decision is made. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's correct.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us how many appeals he has allowed personally in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture?
Hon. B. Barlee: The answer to that question is: zero.
C. Tanner: In that case, there is a presumption on the part of the people of this province that they have no appeal because of the political affiliation of this member.
Hon. B. Barlee: Not at all. We can get into debate on the value of the agricultural land reserve. I would be delighted to debate that outside of this House. I'm a firm supporter of the agricultural land reserve. Your party split on it last year, if I remember correctly, despite the valiant efforts of the member that I'm looking at now to hold them on board. I think it's very valuable.
I am not going to prejudge the Agricultural Land Commission. They are drawn from all facets of life, and I think they do an excellent job. They have served the province extremely well. It would be very
[ Page 7499 ]
presumptuous of me to overrule them unless there was a very good reason.
C. Tanner: I'm sorry, I disagree with the minister. It's only fair that there should be an appeal from the decisions made in any sort of jurisdiction in this province. If the appeal is to a member of your persuasion and particular view on the ALR, there is no appeal, because in effect you've never allowed one. It is your responsibility, as Minister of Agriculture and the final place of recourse for anybody who doesn't agree with the decision, to make decisions until you change the system.
Hon. B. Barlee: The political persuasion of the applicants makes no difference to me at all. Some of those applicants have been NDP, some have been Liberal, some have been Social Credit, some have been Conservatives and some have been Reform. It doesn't make any difference at all. I look at the merits of the appeal, and I study the reasons for it being turned down by the Agricultural Land Commission. And the hon. member forgets something: the agricultural land reserve is basically another zoning law.
C. Tanner: If there's an appeal against a zoning decision, there's an appeal to somebody where you get a decision rendered. I think the minister is not exercising his ministerial responsibility, and in fact exercising discretion and giving a reasonable appeal to somebody who doesn't agree with the decision that has been imposed upon them. The minister is being derelict in his duties in this respect.
Hon. B. Barlee: Let me give you a classic example. In the city of Kelowna, 1,000 acres have been let out of the agricultural land reserve over the last 15 years. Glenmore, a marvellous orchard area that preserves our food supply, looks after the ambience of the area and provides quality of life, lost 600 acres. It was let through by a previous government. It's true; I would never have let that through.
C. Tanner: I'll give the minister and the House another example. A group of public-spirited citizens, who wanted to put something into effect for the benefit of all the citizens on a Gulf island, were not allowed to take a piece of property, which was good for nothing, out of the agricultural land area in order to build a hospital and group home for old people. Which one is best serving...? How is the minister serving my constituents in the Gulf Islands when they want a piece of property for the public good?
Hon. B. Barlee: The member doesn't realize that 19 out of 20 acres in British Columbia -- 95 percent -- are outside the ALR. It is my job, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to ensure that most of that remaining 5 percent is protected by the legislation, and that's what I do. I'm not popular. Some of my friends have applied. One of them even had the audacity to phone me up. I hung up the phone immediately. This is hallmark legislation, and it's civilized legislation. I'm saying that those lands should stay intact for the next generations.
I've seen what happened when land is withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve. Kelowna was the gem of the Okanagan; it was a jewel when I was a kid. The member knows that. Look at Kelowna now. I'm telling you what I told the Kelowna council: they had been derelict in their duty. We talk about dereliction of duty. They didn't protect that town, which was in the sun belt and was really the Riviera of Canada. And what has happened to Kelowna? Taxes have gone up and parkland has gone down; crime, traffic and pollution have gone up. It's not the same. I'm protecting it, because I think it's in the best interest of British Columbians not only for 1993 but also for 2003, 2013 and all the way down the line.
C. Tanner: The minister makes one mistake. Kelowna might be nice now, and it might be a nice place in the sun belt, but it comes after Sidney.
I don't disagree with what the minister says in many respects, particularly about Kelowna. But he and I have had this discussion before. I'm saying that he is derelict in his duty in that he has not allowed, as is part of his responsibility, an appeal, because he has a particular position on the ALR. I don't disagree with his position. But the fact of the matter is that he is being derelict in his duty, and he is imposing that position on every decision. In this province today there is no appeal on a decision about the ALR. He is being derelict in his duty in a second responsibility: bringing in something to replace what he's not doing himself.
Hon. B. Barlee: I look at each one of those applications that comes over my desk. If I felt there were enough reasons for letting it through, I would. I have literally hundreds of these applications. There is always a reason: they need a school, they need an old folks' home or they need a hospital. The Agricultural Land Commission looks at those very carefully. Occasionally they are allowed; usually they are not. Remember that they do have 95 percent.... The agricultural land reserve is not a fallback position for individuals who want more cheap land. It's there because I think it impacts significantly on the ambience of the province, on maintenance of our food supply, on our greenbelts and on our quality of life. If there were some very important and logical reasons why it should be released, I would probably do that.
C. Tanner: I have one last request of the minister. If the minister is not going to exercise the discretion and authority which comes with his department and is not going to offer the citizens of British Columbia some appeal from a decision which is made against them, it is essential that he should immediately bring in some alternative course of appeal.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's why we're bringing in the new legislation; it should be this session.
[12:45]
[ Page 7500 ]
G. Wilson: In a somewhat generous mood this morning, let me say that I think the ALR is probably one of the things that the NDP did right from 1972 to 1975. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything to maintain farming as a viable activity and to assist farmers to make that land worth farming. We need to look after that, but that's another issue and another discussion. Clearly we have to protect the agricultural industry in the province.
I am interested that the minister says he receives literally hundreds of applications, and he said that if there's a good reason, exemptions or exceptions can be made. I draw the minister's attention to a specific case in point in the town of Gibsons in my riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. There is an interesting case with the Reimers, who have an application before the ALR for the construction of a second residence. This second residence is to be built exclusively for the use of a senior family member, and is on five acres of land in the ALR. It is an area that essentially does not require subdivision, removal of land or diminishment of the agricultural land in any way. The regional district land use bylaws say that a second dwelling is allowed on a parcel of land that size. I realize that the minister is somewhat constrained in his ability to comment directly on each of these individual applications, but I'm asking on principle here what might be seen to be wrong with allowing regulatory land use bylaws, such as you would find with a regional district bylaw, to apply on agricultural land if indeed there is no change or diminishment of agricultural land that is currently before the ALC.
Hon. B. Barlee: I am surprised at the hon. member asking me that question. First of all, if I were to answer it, I would be placed in a conflict of interest. Secondly, if that proposal is before the Agricultural Land Commission, they will consider all of the various ramifications of that proposal. So I really cannot answer it.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
G. Wilson: I'm very sensitive to the fact that the minister can't directly intercede or involve himself in this specific case. Nevertheless, I think there is a simple principle here that can be discussed in the broader context. You have land use bylaws that are put in place by, in this case, the regional district -- though it could be a municipal bylaw. The regional district bylaw says that a second dwelling is permitted on a parcel of land of such and such a size. I mention this is in principle. We are not saying there is any removal or diminishment of ALR land or that we're in any way changing the nature of the land description. So it's not as though there's an application for exemption or withdrawal. What we're looking at here is regional district land use bylaws that seem to be restricted by a rather strange quirk in the legislation, which says the local land use bylaws no longer apply if you happen to have that parcel under the ALR.
That's the point I'm getting at. I'm not asking the minister to directly intercede in this instance, although clearly the referral process is a lengthy one. It's one that may not be resolved until sometime in the fall, I understand, because of the applications there. Yet we have an urgent need for the construction of this dwelling because the senior, the mother of the family, requires somewhere to live, and the family is attempting to go ahead. So it's an interesting case in principle. I'm asking the minister to comment in principle as to why regional district and local land use bylaws cannot be applied on agriculture land, if there is no diminishment or change in status of the land on which that application is being made.
Hon. B. Barlee: A good technical question. Again, I will not answer that, because of the potential conflict of interest. I have never interfered in the workings of the Agricultural Land Commission.
This party is sometimes accused of patronage. I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. I have five members on the Agriculture Land Commission: a longtime Liberal, a longtime Socred, a longtime NDPer and a longtime Conservative. I don't know who the fifth is, and I don't care. They have all served the province extremely well. I trust their judgment. It is an area I shouldn't be commenting on. I'm not trying to duck it, either. I think the member well knows this.
There are provisions within the Agricultural Land Commission Act that will allow people, if they are in a position of hardship, to have that process speeded up. I can say that. I will not comment on the rest.
G. Wilson: Let's move off the specifics of this particular instance. I have one last point to the minister, again with respect to a local concern within a regional district and municipality. It has to do with the servicing of properties on either side of agricultural land and the difficulty that those servicing costs produce for the municipality, because where development is allowed to take place around it.... Given that there is this block of land outside the normal development process, if you're running water and sewer lines from development A, and you're going to carry that through agricultural land to development B, it may be some distance. The portion of land through which that servicing goes essentially must be carried either by the developer, through development cost charges which may make the development prohibitive, or it is picked up in some way by the taxpayers in the local region. If it isn't picked up by the taxpayers, they certainly will carry the cost of the overall system, because of land that is carrying those utilities without proper tax compensation.
I wonder if the minister has a comment on that, given that the case that I raised is one that he won't comment on.
Hon. B. Barlee: A lot of municipalities have plans. In fact, some municipal maps have ALR land as future development and so on, as you well know.
I fought a significant battle with the municipality of Oliver. These are voters in my riding. They wanted to take 220 acres of agricultural greenbelts and orchards out of the ALR last fall. They had two public meetings and a municipal plan. It looked great. About 90 percent
[ Page 7501 ]
of the people at the public meetings said: "Yes, we will vote to take that land out." There were 100 people at the first meeting, and 90 percent were for it. At the second meeting, 270 out of 300 were for it. I said no. They said: "We'll go to a referendum." I said: "Okay, I will take you on." We did. We took it to a high-profile referendum, and I stated -- which the member has alluded to -- that the cost would be borne by the town of Oliver. It essentially turned the tide, along with the long-range vision of people in that south Okanagan community. They voted 72 percent to keep that land in and 28 percent to take it out. It was almost a 3-to-1 ratio.
But I'm not going to comment on specific cases. I feel uncomfortable doing it. As the member well knows, I usually give a full answer, but I will not in this area.
G. Wilson: Fair enough. I won't press the minister in this forum -- although let me clearly serve notice that I'm on the case, and we're going to make sure that it is resolved as speedily as possible.
As I turn this back to the critic, I would like, in my final comment to the minister.... As someone who has some interest in Kelowna these days, let me say that I find it quite an exciting place -- notwithstanding the fast development. It's a very fine and wonderful community. Kelowna did attempt to correct some problems in the last election by electing a Liberal MLA from that area for the first time in history. In the next election, as we form government, they will elect two MLAs and their problems will then soon be solved.
Hon. B. Barlee: The Kelowna of today is no match for the Kelowna of the forties or fifties -- or even of the sixties, for that matter. There are some areas of significant beauty in Kelowna, most of them preserved by the agricultural land reserve.
R. Chisholm: When ALR lands are used for non-agricultural purposes, is the minister considering the possibility that developers have to post a bond equal to the value of the land used for development and that this will not be refunded until the property is fully restored to its original state? If you are thinking along these lines, when will we see regulations and when will it be implemented?
Hon. B. Barlee: Would the member for Chilliwack give me clarification? Give me some examples. Are we referring to gravel pits within the ALR?
R. Chisholm: I'm referring, like you said, to gravel pits. I'm referring possibly to golf courses. I'm referring to any non-agricultural use of this land. When the land reverts, the developer is responsible to ensure that it goes back to its original state. Otherwise, they lose the money that they put forward before they started development.
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much for clarifying that, hon. member. If there is a temporary non-farm use such as a gravel pit, the Agricultural Land Commission usually asks the individual to post a bond, which allows for recovery of the land.
R. Chisholm: Aboriginal land claims represent a major issue for virtually all of B.C.'s agricultural community. The aboriginal peoples must be dealt with fairly, and the agricultural industry's needs, including access to and use of resources, must be equally considered. What is this ministry doing to ensure that this happens? Are you involved in any ongoing discussions with other ministries or groups at this time? Is the aboriginal question taken into account when we look at the ALR situation and its problems?
Hon. B. Barlee: The time is approaching 1 o'clock. I will be glad to give the member an answer on the next day. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen: Having worked through the week to within 30 seconds of the official time of adjournment, let me wish those members still in the Legislature a very sunny weekend in their home ridings. I move that this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]