1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 12
[ Page 14641 ]
The House met at 10:08 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to present a report of the auditor general, report No. 5, on compliance-with-authorities audits, conducted by the auditor general's office.
Hon. G. Clark: Today I call Committee of Supply A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors; and in the House I call second reading of Bill 22.
FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT
(second reading)
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Members of this House will recall that two years ago this government began to implement our commitment to strengthen the agricultural land reserve by putting an end to appeals to cabinet of decisions of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. This was followed last year by the passage of Bill 30, which was the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994. That bill completed the restoration of the integrity of the ALR to ensure a secure resource base for the future of farming in British Columbia. Both of these legislative initiatives generated wide discussion and found broad public support.
Having a secure resource base for food production is a key part of government's commitment to agriculture, but we also need to support farm families and farm activities in order to ensure a viable farm sector. In 1994, I initiated a consultation process with the farm sector to develop a new agrifood policy for British Columbia.
Although this policy is still under development, I've decided to respond to an urgent issue that has come up at all of my meetings with farm families across the province. The issue they raise is that farmers face an increasing array of barriers to carrying out farming activities throughout British Columbia, even in the agricultural land reserve. Because of British Columbia's terrain, the valley bottoms that comprise our best farmlands are also where most British Columbians live. In fact, three-quarters of our farm production by value comes from the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan Valley and the east coast of Vancouver Island, where most of our population lives.
It's critical to our province that government find ways to allow agriculture to operate successfully in conjunction with a growing population of non-farming neighbours. A better farm-non-farm relationship is important for a variety of reasons. First, the farming sector makes a significant contribution to our economy. Farm sales of over $1.5 billion provide employment for over 30,000 people. Related food processing and sales in excess of $4 billion create an additional 19,000 jobs. In total, 6,000 new jobs have been created in this sector since this government took over in 1991.
As well as providing for one of our most basic needs -- food -- our working farmlands also provide a strong economic base to our rural communities and serve as a stabilizer of jobs when other sectors, such as forestry and mining, are in recession. Our farms produce just over half the food needs of British Columbians and also produce $2.2 billion annually in revenue from exported food products. The seasonal production provides high-quality produce to our consumers and stabilizes the cost of our food.
In a recent survey of the Buy B.C. program, tracking various sales of foods in March 1995, 82 percent of consumers said they thought it was important for B.C. to produce its own food. So it is important to British Columbians that we help farmers to do their job.
This bill is about helping our farmers develop new relationships with their neighbours to allow normal farm practices to go on without unreasonable restrictions. In developing the bill, I talked to farmers and local governments in our key farming areas throughout British Columbia. I found the local governments, too, were looking for our help. It was immediately clear that the farm-non-farm conflicts were very difficult for local governments, and that farmers usually lost the debates at the local level. This bill is intended to raise the level of certainty for farmers and their neighbours. It is intended to help resolve conflicts arising from farm practices, and it is intended to build new partnerships.
We're using this bill to create the context to encourage partnerships between the farm community, local governments, the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Finally, we are using the framework of an existing agency to support this work. The bill will replace the Agriculture Protection Act and make consequential amendments to the Land Title Act and Municipal Act. The legislation will replace the Agriculture Protection Act with legislation that ensures that farmers can farm in the ALR. It will establish a process to deal with complaints about farm practice, and it will achieve a true right to farm by protecting farmers from common-law nuisance lawsuits and prohibitive injunctions when they're farming properly. As part of this right to farm, the legislation will ensure that a farmer in the ALR or where aquaculture is licensed is deemed not to contravene a local government nuisance or miscellaneous bylaw.
The legislation will establish a process for the resolution of complaints about farm practice and a means of judging whether the practices complained of are normal farm practice. The process will use a farmer's peers -- people with knowledge of normal farm practices -- to assess that farm practice. If a complaint cannot be resolved, the matter will be heard by a panel of three members of the Farm Practices Board established under the act. The board can order the farmer to change or stop a practice that is not a normal farm practice, or it can dismiss the complaint. To avoid creating a new bureaucracy, the Farm Practices Board will be composed of the members of the British Columbia Marketing Board together with additional members named by the minister. The board has only the powers granted under this legislation -- primarily to decide on complaints. The Farm Practices Board does not have any of the powers of the B.C. Marketing Board.
[ Page 14642 ]
The Land Title Act and the Municipal Act will be amended to encourage effective planning for farming and to better define and improve the stability of the interface between farming and non-farming areas. Section 977 of the Municipal Act will be replaced with several amendments. The minister's regulation power in section 977 will be replaced with guidelines for bylaws regulating farming and approval powers over those bylaws. The land use regulation component of section 977 of the Municipal Act will be incorporated into the zoning and rural land use sections of the act. A review of these sections will be required in order to achieve consistency with provincial standards.
The potential for flexibility in the application of the standards to take into account local circumstances will be built into the process, but this will be subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Local governments will also be able to enact special farm bylaws, which may require certain farm activities, determine the timing of some activities and, where needed, prohibit specific farm operations in certain locations -- all subject to compliance with the provincial standards and to the minister's approval. The limits on local government powers under the Municipal Act amendments will become effective only after provincial standards developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are implemented by regulation.
[10:15]
The development of standards will require detailed consultation with the farm sector and local government. The application of these standards will be phased in on a regional district-wide basis and will trigger a three-year review of the bylaws.
In conclusion, this bill at long last provides a context for the security that farmers need to be able to farm their lands within the agricultural land reserve. It removes major impediments to the practice of responsible farming. It links environmentally sound farming practice with a secure place for farmers to practice their chosen vocation within the lands set aside for farm use. The bill allows local governments to continue to play an important role in representing the needs of local interests by ensuring that local conditions can be reflected in their bylaws. The bill provides a balanced forum for the resolution of farm practice complaints. It provides certainty for farmers farming in the agricultural land reserve, and it helps local governments deal with local regulation of farming. Finally, it provides guidance and planning for farming across British Columbia.
Deputy Speaker: Minister, I don't believe I heard you move second reading. Would you do so simply for Hansard's sake?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move second reading of Bill 22.
Deputy Speaker: It's now my pleasure to introduce the member for Abbotsford, who is making his first speech in this chamber.
J. van Dongen: My first speech in the chamber was scribbled on the ferry down here this morning. I'm pleased to be here this morning to lend support to the bill that's being presented by the Minister of Agriculture. I say that, because it addresses an issue that has been of concern to farmers for a long time. It has been of increasing concern, as we face more and more problems with urban encroachment on our farm operations. We have the legislation in place that maintains good farmland in the agricultural land reserve. This legislation will help maintain farmers on that farmland, and really it has to be a condition of the agricultural land reserve that farmers are able to farm.
I had the privilege of being involved in the consultative process referred to by the minister. I think it was actually the first meeting I was involved in, which was kind of a pilot meeting in Abbotsford that involved a number of stakeholders, including people from local government, local ministry officials and a variety of farmers from all over the Fraser Valley. I can certainly confirm the concerns of that meeting that, hopefully, will be addressed by this bill.
I will just make a couple of comments on some of the highlights of the bill. The issue of nuisance actions, I think, is a critical one, and it behooves not only farmers but people -- their neighbours, say, in the urban areas -- to work together on these issues. Obviously, the definition of normal farm practice is something that will be the subject of some debate, but I think that it's positive that we're attempting to address it in something of a more formalized manner.
I would support the procedure for handling complaints. The bill makes reference to having the board, or the chair of the board, attempt to mediate a resolution before it goes through the formal appeal process, and I think that's good. I also think that having peer group involvement -- in this case farmers -- on the Farm Practices Board and on those panels is also positive. I speak from personal experience on that, in that I've been involved in the Farm Debt Review Board, which is a federal body; but it's a peer group process and, I think, a more constructive way to address issues involving farmers. Farmers are more likely to respond positively to their peers, and obviously we'll have people with good credibility on those boards. So I think that's a positive aspect.
The other thing that I want to mention are the sections under division (4.1), sections 973.2 and 973.3, where we have the involvement of the Minister of Agriculture and influence by the Minister of Agriculture in local bylaw making. I think that's critical. We've had situations in the Fraser Valley where it would take, in one case, 16 months to get a building permit for a barn in the agricultural land reserve. In this particular case, that individual wasn't able to meet the time requirements for the marketing board in that commodity. He was unable to proceed, in the end, to farm on his land because of a local bylaw. So I think that the involvement of the minister there is positive, as contemplated under the bill.
I just want to raise a couple of issues or concerns that we would want to pursue in committee. The issue of transportation of equipment is becoming more and more difficult -- critical in some areas -- and I think that it probably applies all over the Fraser Valley, but in particular to places like Delta, where we have farmland on the Richmond side of the tunnel and of the Highway 91 connector. It's becoming increasingly difficult to move custom work equipment and that sort of thing. We have difficulties in other areas in B.C. about moving farm equipment. I don't know that that's necessarily appropriate in this bill, but it's something that ties in, I think, with the right-to-farm issue.
We have some questions and concerns about the makeup of the Farm Practices Board. We wonder about the rationale
[ Page 14643 ]
and the merit of having the level of involvement that is proposed by members of the B.C. Marketing Board. I'll simply leave it at that, and we can talk about it in committee.
There's also another issue that is very serious for farmers, I think, in many parts of British Columbia, which is members of the public trespassing on farm property, where farmers have no knowledge of people on their property -- and no permission has been granted -- yet they have a potential liability problem for accidents or whatever might happen there. That is another issue that has impact on the right-to-farm area, and one we may want to talk about.
Finally, I have one comment that I want to make somewhat facetiously -- but, I think, more so very seriously. This bill does not protect the farmer from nuisance actions by the biggest nuisance of all, which in some cases is the local health unit -- an arm of the provincial government. As I said, I say that somewhat seriously. I think the kinds of involvements and potential actions by the Minister of Agriculture that are contemplated in this bill should maybe also apply to the local health units as they do to local governments. We have had what I would classify, very mildly, as nuisance actions by officials in the health unit that have caused great stress, great frustration, and a great deal of wasted energy, time, money and resources, both on the government side and in the private sector. I'm referring to nuisance actions under the Health Act by inspectors of on-site sewage disposal.
As the minister knows, we have been involved.... The farm community in the Fraser Valley has been in discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health on this matter. It is almost one year ago today that I brought Dale and Lisa Schmidt over to Victoria to meet with the ministers on this matter, and I think that progress is rather slow.
There's a very serious problem there, and we want to continue to address that under the Health Act. There's been far too much authority granted to the people in the health units. They have been granted virtually unlimited authority on anything other than conventional sewage systems. We're looking for some very serious changes in that area. I have documented a number of cases where civil servants working in the health units have said to farmers in Sumas Prairie that farmers shouldn't live in Sumas Prairie; they should live in town and commute to work like everyone else. I think that has something to do with the right to farm. When you may have 40,000 chickens or 200 livestock and you're told you should live in town, how can you farm? That is absolutely ridiculous. We have not been able to find one private sector consultant, engineer or anyone else who supports a lot of the policies and practices of these health units.
So I raise that because it's very serious for the farm community, and I'm hopeful that the government, particularly in the persons of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health, will see fit to move on that very actively and address that -- maybe not through the right-to-farm bill, but in some manner.
With that, I will sum up and say that in general we are very pleased to support the bill as presented.
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure to rise after the maiden speech of the member for Abbotsford. He certainly started off on a good foot, supporting the government on a very important bill. I think that choosing, as he has, to rise on this right-to-farm legislation is indicative of where his heart lies. Of course, the member, in the last number of years, has had to make a few choices. He's obviously a pro-choice person. He chose to be with the Liberals; however, he also chose to support this legislation, and I'd like to commend him for that.
I'm a little bit concerned that perhaps his leader wasn't listening quite so carefully to some of the points that he was making, but I'm sure he can discuss with him later his views on agriculture and support for farmland.
[10:30]
I think that this bill has some broad implications for agricultural land in this province, and I don't think that one should dismiss the broad scope of the right-to-farm legislation, particularly given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has just recently advocated local control for the agricultural land reserve. I'm sure the member for Abbotsford will have some views on that as well, because that member knows very well just how tenuous our existence is on agricultural land in this province. He knows that 2 percent of British Columbia is agricultural land and that that 2 percent is in the highest-developed and most-pressured areas in British Columbia.
I think that the member for Abbotsford, when he reflects.... I'm sure he has reflected, because he has served on a number of very important committees discussing agriculture. He'll reflect on, and discuss with his colleagues in his caucus, the implications of local control for the agricultural land reserve. I hope he speaks strongly to his leader on this issue. In my region, municipal politicians of whatever stripe are opposed to having local control for the agricultural land reserve.
This right-to-farm act speaks very specifically to farmers being in an environment where there is a provincial mandate to provide protection to agriculture. That's why the minister has introduced this legislation that says that local bylaws are superseded by this legislation and that the development that grows up next to a piece of agricultural land does not impact negatively on that farmer to the extent that he can't go about doing his normal practices. I thought the member for Abbotsford spoke quite interestingly about the implications of farmers having it suggested to them that they live in town and commute to their farms. What he's talking about there is the fact that it's important to be on your worksite when you're a farmer, because you often start work at four in the morning. That's what it's like in the Okanagan, and the member for Okanagan East will vouch for that, too.
C. Serwa: The member for Okanagan East is not in the Legislature at the moment.
J. Beattie: That's right. The member for Okanagan West will also vouch for it.
You have to be on the farm, and farmers want to be on the farm. Lucio Almeida from Penticton, one of my constituents, said just last week in the Penticton Herald: "I'm here to farm." That's what he wants to do. He had a chance to sell his farm for half a million dollars a year or so ago when there was a development of 90 condominiums growing up right next door. The developer came to him and said: "Look, why don't you sell out? This agricultural land reserve is eventually going to go, anyway." That's what he said. "I'll give you half a million dollars for your land, despite the fact that it's in the agricultural land reserve."
[ Page 14644 ]
Lucio was a bit taken aback by that. He went home and talked to his wife, and he said: "What are we going to do if we sell the farm for half a million dollars? Where are we going to go? What kind of work am I going to do? I've been farming all my life." Lucio said it. He said he's here to farm, and he wants to farm.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this right-to-farm legislation, because when he introduced this bill, I called Lucio. I said: "Lucio, the kind of struggle you've had in the last two years with that developer below you, that developer you had to fight to get a 30-foot distance as a buffer zone between your property line and the houses.... You had to fight like heck to get that, and then your developer turned around and put them between 18 to 22 feet away." They promised to put up a Frost fence. Instead, what did they try to do? They tried to build a 15-foot cement wall that was going to shadow his trees, and then he had to fight like heck with people from the Ministry of Agriculture and with the town planner. Finally, he got them to concede that it wasn't acceptable, because it would block his dwarf trees late in the afternoon. Then they planted cedars that would grow to 30 feet. Now we've got to fight with them again. It's ridiculous! It's absolutely ridiculous that a farmer who has spent his whole life working the land, supporting the local agricultural industry and supporting the economy has to put up with this kind of infringement on his right to farm.
I'm glad the member opposite for Abbotsford is standing up and saying that farmers have a legitimate place in these developing communities. They were there first, they contribute to the economy, they provide employment, they do good work, they protect the agricultural land, and we're not going to let them go down the sewer with the rest of the waste from the subdivisions that grow up around them.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
The amount of pressure that a development next to a farm imposes upon a farm is quite enormous. The list of impacts is horrendous. To a person sitting in downtown Vancouver or the centre of Penticton or Kelowna -- any community of any size that has some distance from agricultural land -- these impacts seem quite significant. For example, I don't know whether you use bird cannons in the Fraser Valley, but up in the Okanagan, bird cannons are part of growing grapes and cherries. When you have a vineyard of 30 or 40 acres, you can't cover that much land with nets. It's something that does have an impact on people, but it's really part of the job of protecting your crop from birds.
Spraying is another thing. This government has supported the sterile insect release program that was initiated by the previous government, and we have continued to support that program. In fact, this year the provincial government made its largest commitment to that. It's a tripartite initiative with municipal governments, regional districts, the federal government who built the facility, and the provincial government. The whole purpose of the sterile insect release program is to reduce the amount of toxic sprays, Guthion being the major one. Guthion was a nerve gas used in the Second World War, and now we spray it on our crops to take care of the lepidopteran family of caterpillars. It's very effective, but nonetheless it's a very toxic nerve gas. With the sterile insect release program, as was shown back in the 1960s and '70s, led by Jinx Proverbs of the Summerland Research Station, the coddling moth can be controlled through organic means. We are working towards that, but sprays are still a part of our agriculturalist job. It's recognized that you can't grow a crop that's saleable if it's full of wormholes.
Controlling pests is only one. Spraying on fertilizers and nutrients for long-term sustainability of those trees, whether it be iron or whatever chemical or nutrient it might be.... Spray is another one of those nuisance factors if you're sitting in the city, but it's part of the work of being a farmer and protecting your crop. Noise, of course, goes hand in hand with applying sprays. Tractor noise is endemic to the tree fruit industry or any agricultural industry, whether you're ploughing the fields, harvesting the crops, spraying, mowing the grass, spreading the seed or planting the potatoes. Whatever it might be, noise is part of the operation.
That's why this bill is designed in such a way as to establish those standard practices that an agriculturalist must use in order to produce his crop. This bill allows farmers as a group, with their community, to define what are standard practices. I think it's a wonderful concept, because there are poor farmers in the region. There are people who don't act within the bounds of doing what is really agriculturally necessary, and when that happens, then of course there should be some recourse. But in general, I would say 99.9 percent of the farmers in British Columbia perform their tasks in a responsible, horticulturally sound way. And for those people, the definition of standard practices by this board is a completely appropriate mechanism, and I compliment the minister for structuring it that way.
The spinoffs of allowing the community to define standard practices, of course, will be that in this province of ours agriculture will step up one notch in terms of its legitimacy. Let's be realistic about what agriculture has meant. In the days when this province was first being established, agriculture was what people were here to do, in many senses. The remittance men came and set up in the Okanagan and even here, up in Duncan. I know that the second-oldest tennis court in the world -- a grass court -- is in Duncan. That was built by the farmers who settled in the Cowichan area. It's a British tradition to play tennis on grass courts, but they were farmers. That's another example of people who came here to farm, to work the land, and certainly at that time much of the economy...the food that was produced here was consumed. It was an important staple production mode. There was a period when we moved away from agriculture being what we might call an essential part of our economy. That was previous to 1972, when development started eating away at our land and people thought they could dismiss agriculture -- that it wasn't so important, that residential development was more important with that growth.
It wasn't until the previous government introduced the agricultural land reserve that we stabilized agricultural land, and we allowed agriculture to become reinforced in our community as something that was here to stay. The agricultural land reserve says: not for a subdivision in ten years or 20 years or the next generation -- it's here forever.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: We have to get that through our minds, member for Okanagan West; we have to get it through our minds that agricultural land is here forever.
That was an enormous step in terms of stabilizing agriculture in British Columbia. This is another step. Now we're
[ Page 14645 ]
talking about standard practices to fully integrate agriculture into the broader community. Once those standards are defined, we can no longer say that farming is something that behaves on its own rules at its own time. No, now it's a legitimate part of an economy, and it has its rightful place with its own standards. Once these standards are established, the spinoff is, of course, that these guidelines that municipalities will establish around these standard practices can be extrapolated and applied throughout the province.
I like what the minister has done. What the minister has said is: if you can accept the standard practices in your region and it can be applied as a template, that's fine; if you need some exceptions to those standard practices, you can make a request. That request goes to the minister, and the minister has the final decision. What this farm rights legislation is saying is that like the agricultural land reserve, the province will set the standards, and those standards will be applied on agricultural areas throughout this wonderful province of British Columbia.
I also like what the minister is saying in this act about the authority of municipalities to condemn a farmer for not acting within standard practices. I think it's well and good to establish the standard practices, and it's well and good to say that there may be a breach of those practices. But on the other hand -- and this harks back to the discussion about local control for the agricultural land reserve -- the pressure on municipalities to do the bidding of the larger number of people in the community, which is the residential community, is powerful. Any chastisement of a farmer through this process that asks him to change his practices must go to the minister for final approval, and I think that's right. Lucio Almeida said about farming in the Okanagan: "Jim, we're standing on my hill, my wife and I, looking down at 250 residences. You know, Jim, if we have to walk down to city hall and talk to the mayor and council about what's right, about what should be done, how much support do you think I'm going to get?" I can't say it with the amount of emotion that Lucio used, but that's what he said. "How much support am I going to get down there, Jim?" Well, not much, Lucio. It's 250 to 2; the odds are not in your favour. Local pressure is enormous, and it is on the agricultural land reserve.
I'm sorry that the Liberal opposition leader is calling for agricultural land to be managed locally. This will be an election issue. It's a very important issue, and it's also very important that farmers and their practices don't depend on the goodwill of municipalities and local politicians. They need an arm's-length adjudicator of how they practice.
[10:45]
I've covered much of what I've wanted to say about this bill. As an ex-farmer and one who has a great deal of caring for the agricultural community, for the life they represent, for the family values they bring to this province and for the dedication they've given to this province for the last 90 years, I feel that this is an enormous step forward in solidifying their position in our economy.
An Hon. Member: You shouldn't have given up farming.
J. Beattie: The member over on the far side says that I shouldn't have given up farming, and I can tell you that sometimes I believe the same thing. Shovelling manure out on the farm is not much different, in many ways, than watching the way the member for Delta South behaved yesterday. Yesterday I thought: boy, we have our problems here, and I'm a part of that, but.... I notice that the member for Delta South is somewhat chagrined that I mentioned that, but there were a lot of similarities to what we throw around in this Legislature.
At any rate, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I congratulate the minister for introducing it. If the member for Abbotsford is any indication, I'm sure that all members in this House will be compelled to support this legislation.
J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to stand in my place and speak in support of Bill 22, Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. All of us in this Legislature recognize that there is not much that is more basic to us as a society than our ability to provide for ourselves -- to grow food. Unfortunately, that is not always recognized, as my colleague has pointed out, and certainly that phenomenon is increasing as we move to a more urban society.
I was very pleased when, in 1972, our previous New Democrat government had the foresight to create the agricultural land reserve, which in effect protected our very small agricultural base -- which was something like 4 percent or 4.5 percent of the land base in British Columbia at that time -- for future generations. Unfortunately, it has been eroded since, because the agricultural land reserve was weakened for some time.
However, here we are 20-odd years later, and along with numerous other initiatives from this government, we are again demonstrating our commitment to our agricultural base, our commitment to farmers and farm families, and our commitment to that very real necessity in British Columbia: to be able to provide for our own food needs. It's worth mentioning that our Buy B.C. initiative has been very, very successful, as have many of the other things that we've brought forward in the last three years to protect and enhance our ability to engage in agriculture and aquaculture.
This legislation, like most of the legislation our government has brought forward in the last few years, is the result of extensive consultation. The minister and the ministry have talked at length with local governments, and they've also talked with those involved in the industry. I know there was such a consultation that took place in my area, and I found it very distressing at that meeting to hear the discouragement of farmers. Some of that came from the fact that they are sandwiched between urban and farm needs. I think the Cowichan Valley is an excellent example of the problem.
With this legislation, our government finds the balance and will continue to find the balance, on the one hand, between the more comprehensive right to farm that's embedded in this bill, especially within the agricultural land reserve and that interface between urban and rural which is tremendously important in areas like the Cowichan Valley -- which is one of the fastest-growing areas in British Columbia.... On the one hand, it protects the farmer and the farmer's right to farm and our ability to have agriculture. It protects farmers from things like common-law nuisance lawsuits, which occur increasingly in those interface areas, and restrictive injunctions, which act in the same way. It does that, on the one hand, by, on the other hand, setting standards for normal farm practices. We will see provincewide standards set by the province in consultation. Also, there's the ability for local
[ Page 14646 ]
governments to pass bylaws which set some standards appropriate for the areas; but, appropriately, those will be subject to ministerial review, to ensure that the provincial need, the provincial good, takes priority over local pressures.
What's important for farmers is the same thing that's important for any economic sector in our province or anywhere: certainty. Uncertainty has been growing for those involved in agriculture and aquaculture from things like, as I mentioned, urban development adjacent to agriculture, the increased technological complexity of agriculture, and things like the increased farm intensity that's necessary to remain cost-effective and cost-efficient. There are also changing public values: things like animal welfare, issues around farm labour, and environmental issues. All of those things create a tremendous amount of pressure and, therefore, uncertainty. There's also, as I mentioned when I stood up to speak, a loss of farm connection in our society and therefore a deteriorating understanding and appreciation of the role of farms and agriculture. All of those things create uncertainty. This legislation will address those things and move significantly to restore certainty to farmers.
One of the important points in the legislation is that there is a process through a new Farm Practices Board -- which is the B.C. Marketing Board and some others -- that will resolve conflicts as they arise. I think it's also important to note that this doesn't create a new bureaucracy; it simply builds on what's there -- existing practices, peer reviews and so on. I think that ability to resolve conflicts in a mediated process, to keep them out of the courts and to allow for a process that will recognize standards -- recognize other needs but, above all, protect farming and provide resolutions that are workable -- is a very important feature of this legislation.
Overall -- of course, we're speaking in second reading to the principle of the bill -- I think this is really good legislation. It needs to be put in context, and of course, that context is part of this government's plan for the future. We have growth strategies; we've got comprehensive land use planning that's happened over the last few years. This clearly builds on those two and takes specific aim at protecting our agriculture industry. I think it's interesting, too, to note that this not only allows local governments to provide for some bylaws to deal with farming issues, subject to provincial approval, but it also, for the first time ever, encourages local governments to plan for agriculture, instead of dealing with it as an aside, an encroachment on or a problem for urban development. It encourages local governments to plan for agriculture. That is an attitudinal change, if you like, and a planning change that is significant and important.
I want to make a couple of other comments before I close. I have to leave for another meeting. I think it's important to note that our legislation in British Columbia is unique in a number of ways. Several provinces in this country have right-to-farm legislation of this nature, but this is the only one that links it with local government and creates a positive partnership. The local nuisance bylaws that might be passed for other reasons in a local community, for instance, don't apply to farm practices, and those nuisances that people deal with will go the Farm Practices Board rather than the courts. Those and others are some of the processes in place that will create partnerships between local governments, the province, farmers, the Farm Practices Board and so on. That's a really positive step and a unique point in this legislation.
It is also important to note that this legislation is not just being kind of thrown out there. It's going to be well supported by government and by the Ministry of Agriculture specifically. All of us who have spoken have mentioned the fact that the connection between the food we eat, the land base and agriculture has been disintegrating over the years. The ministry is going to address those issues through building on the public education campaigns, such as the Agriculture in the Classroom program, to rebuild that kind of connection and support for agriculture. It is also going to be working with industry to develop farm practice guidelines and to support their broad acceptance. It's going to work with the industry rather than provide sticks to force them to do things.
It's also going to provide information to land developers and real estate agents -- and I think this is tremendously important, especially in areas such as mine in the Cowichan Valley -- so that when they sell land, they will talk to prospective buyers who want to buy near farms and tell them about what a farm in the neighbourhood means. It means that there is some noise and some dust, and there are on occasion some odours from farming and some disturbance. If they want to move into that area, then they need to understand that all those negative things go with the positive things of a farm. In fact, if they understand what's happening there, all those things can be educational, a part of the community and positive rather than negative. So government will be supporting this legislation and supporting farming through all those initiatives, plus working with other agencies as is appropriate.
I want to conclude my comments by reiterating that farming and agriculture are incredibly important to us as a society. The need for a sovereign and independent source of food supply is obviously something we should all prioritize. There is also something like $14 billion generated each year in our economy through the agricultural industry, and more than 200,000 people are employed on farms, in fishing and food processing and those kinds of industries. In terms of new jobs, which is something we are focused on -- jobs are our highest priority in this government -- there have been something like 6,000 new jobs created in the last couple of years in the egg and fish sectors. There is importance in terms of our sovereignty in terms of food supply and in terms of the economy in creating new jobs.
I'm very pleased to hear the opposition's comments so far, which are certainly in keeping with their comments in the past. I'm glad to hear that they're going to be supporting it, and I look forward to seeing, hopefully, unanimous support for this legislation in this Legislature. It certainly deserves it.
L. Hanson: Well, I know it's very difficult not to be in favour of the principles that the minister has told us about in his opening remarks. We've all in our political lives experienced situations where the farming community is being -- what should I say? -- attacked by urban sprawl as well as on some of the things that happen in a normal farm operation as being less than nice to have as a neighbour. But we also know the importance of having food and being in control of the provision of that food. So, with some reservations and some things that I guess we will learn as we get into the committee stage of the bill, there's little difficulty in actually supporting the principle behind it.
[11:00]
I note that the minister has suggested in the bill that they would use the marketing board members as members of this
[ Page 14647 ]
new board being created. I might suggest to the minister -- and I hear him listening to me, which I appreciate -- that using members who are already in place is a good idea. The only opposition you might have to any of that is the creation of another bureaucracy in terms of the board, where maybe there are enough existing boards that could have been given the responsibility of adjudicating disputes that might happen.
I also note in the bill that the minister has the right to designate other matters for the board to investigate, to decide upon or to effectively adjudicate if there are disputes. A question that arises is: what are those other matters that the minister might consider referring to the board for decision?
I also note that the previous speaker suggested there was a partnership being developed here between the ministry and local government. If my interpretation of a partnership is correct, it would suggest to me that there are two equal authorities sitting at the table making decisions. They may be sitting at the table discussing issues, but if I read the act correctly -- much similar to the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act -- it is far from an equal partnership. When push comes to shove, the authority lies with the ministry. Maybe that's as it should be, because it is the senior government of the two. But to suggest that there is an equal partnership at that table is a little beyond belief, when you actually read that act. I might also add, although it has nothing to do with this, that the same claim was made for the growth strategies act. I sure, without any difficulty, understand where the final authority lies.
To understand the total impact of the act you probably have to marry up the regulations that will come later with the act to understand what the implication is, what the application is and what effect it is going to have on the farming community and the urban community. Again this government has left that to the regulations. To understand what the eventual result is, we have to wait until we see the regulations, marry them to the act and then make an assessment of what the actual impact is. I might add that this impact is out of the scrutiny of this Legislature and out of the debate process, so we really can't fully scrutinize the bill and analyze what the effect is until after we've married the two together.
I guess one final point is that as I understand the act, it only applies to land that is within the agricultural land reserve; that if there is a situation where a farm operation is going ahead that isn't on land that is included within the ALR, the protection or the right to farm doesn't apply in those circumstances. It might seem to me that there is a bit of subtle influence going on here to include some lands in the ALR that are not there now.
Be that as it may, hon. Speaker, I certainly understand the difficulties that have been created where the urban and the farming communities have a conflict in their operations, and I think I have little difficulty supporting the intention that the minister mentioned when he opened second reading. Some of the things within the bill may be slightly different when we get around to the committee stage of the bill.
With those comments and with the reservation about support at a later time, I would like to resume my place and hear the comments of other members.
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to take my place and to say a few words about Bill 22 and support in principle the initiative that this bill, the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, sets forth.
In my community of Langley, in the central Fraser Valley, this is an important issue for us. I think it's important for farm communities to be protected and that we say that: that we protect and value our farmers and our communities for the important contributions to the economic well-being of the province that they provide. Agriculture is a very large component of the economic well-being of this province. In my community we are struggling with rapid growth and urbanization, as are many of the lower mainland communities and as, indeed, are the central areas of the province. The impacts on agriculture and on the environment are significant. Over the last 20 years I have watched our community -- which was primarily a farming community -- grow into one of quite an urban setting. For us in the Fraser Valley I believe that the initiative set forth here, particularly the Farm Practices Board, will be beneficial. As I've said, we've had a number of people moving from the city out to Langley, and they like to have that country space; but sometimes when they're sitting on their patios on a Sunday afternoon, they don't quite like the smell of the farmer next door cleaning the barns. So this, I think, will go a long way to assisting particularly local governments, which are the first ones to feel the pressures of complaint in that direction. The ALR makes up about 70 percent of the land in Langley, so for us this is fairly significant.
The other thing that I like is the evaluation and assessments to determine the consistency and the standards that permit bylaw amendments for local governments after a three-year period for review. This is one area, I think, that is an important part of the bill and which I'm glad was included. Benchmarking, evaluations and assessments, I think, are very important. The Farm Practices Board, which sets up a tribunal and a formal appeal process for complaints, is one that I certainly support. Also, I like the farmers operating within acceptable environmental standards. We've had a number of issues come up in this regard in Langley. As far as wells and waterways are concerned, there needs to be some firm guidelines around these areas.
With those few words, I look forward to committee stage of this bill, where there will be more pointed questions. However, I'm pleased to support Bill 22 in principle.
N. Lortie: I'm pleased to stand in my place and offer my enthusiastic support for Bill 22, the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, otherwise known as the right-to-farm bill. As a resident of Delta, I understand the importance of agriculture to our society, not just for the food it grows -- and that's very, very important -- but also because it's a vibrant part of our local economy and of the economy of British Columbia. In my community of Delta -- and I consider all of Delta to be my community, and Delta North to be my constituency; I share that community with the hon. member for Delta South -- farming is an important part of our local economy -- $50 million at the farm gate in Delta alone, and that's just the value of the produce and products produced by our local farms. There's also a spinoff benefit to local businesses in buying supplies and shopping in local stores, and there's also the component of jobs and that kind of activity that is very important to the local people.
As a former member of the Delta council, I also understand the problems and frustrations the farmers have in dealing with that urban-farm interface that happens in many communities, especially in Delta. Most of us understand that the farmers were there first, and then the towns grew up to
[ Page 14648 ]
service the farmers. As people moved out from the big city to have a more relaxed and easy lifestyle in the suburban communities, they liked to have the farms available for them. They looked at them as green space forever, and that was one of the reasons many people in our communities moved out to the semi-rural areas -- not realizing that a farm is a business, and that a business has certain things that must be done. That creates the problem of the interface of the urban areas and the farming or agricultural community.
On the Delta council, I dealt with -- or tried to deal with -- many complaints of friction between the two parts of our community. There were complaints about smell, noise, dust and spraying different chemicals, and in most cases those were absolutely impossible to adjudicate; we ended up never really finding a solution to that kind of problem. The Minister of Agriculture has offered this solution to the municipal governments, and he should be commended for that.
I mentioned that the farmers were here first, and that people built their houses around that farmland and then started complaining about what was happening on the farm. But it works the other way: when a farmer was in a very rural setting, he didn't have to contend with a lot of the problems that the urban neighbours are bringing to his farm. Many people don't realize, when they open their door after the bylaw inspectors have gone home from work and let their dog run for the rest of the evening, what that dog is up to. In Delta there are large packs of dogs in the evening roaming through the farmland and posing great danger to livestock and crops, but especially to young animals that are very vulnerable. Some people who have a medium- to large-sized dog would not believe these dogs would be capable of killing small sheep and other small animals in the farming community, but that does happen. I remember once I got into some problems when I was on council, advising a farmer that he had a right to shoot a dog if it was molesting or endangering his livestock. It made a headline in one of the local papers: "Lortie Advises: Shoot the Dogs."
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
There is a law, and it's on the books right now. It's called the Livestock Protection Act, which gives the farmer, rancher or other livestock owner the right to protect his livestock. Along with that comes the right under certain circumstances to take drastic action like shooting, or shooting at, wild dogs that are causing his problems.
[11:15]
There are other problems that farmers face in our community. One of the fastest-growing parts of agriculture in Delta is the greenhouse operation. Huge, huge greenhouses are growing hothouse tomatoes, peppers and other products -- even trees for reforestation in some of them in Delta. They are growing these vegetables that aren't available from California and Mexico at certain times of the year and supplying our local market. But not only that, these large and efficient greenhouse operations are exporting tomatoes, green peppers and long English cucumbers to California and Oregon and other states in the United States. They're adding to our industrial economy, our balance of trade with other jurisdictions. So there are a few things that the neighbours to these greenhouses have to put up with.
The greenhouses in Delta are using for fuel and other purposes the waste product from the sawmill industry. They use sawdust and hog fuel to heat the greenhouse in the wintertime and to supply the bedding material that the greenhouse needs. In burning this sawdust and hog fuel they create smoke, and that creates another problem with the neighbours in close proximity to that greenhouse. I think that people who move out to an agricultural area have got to understand -- and this bill does it -- that it's not just green pastureland and idyllic situations; there are some parts of the agricultural industry that create a small nuisance for them. And if they move out there, before they buy that house they should understand that.
Many, many people complain about the noise that tractors and other farm implements are making early in the morning. Everybody knows that farmers get up very early in the morning, especially during planting and harvest times. And at 6 o'clock in the morning, some people who want to sleep in on weekends complain that this is unreasonable. A farmer really only has a certain time to plant and a certain space of time to harvest, and that must be done as long as there is daylight to do it. Farm equipment traditionally has been the tractor, the combine, the plow and the harrow, but some farmers in our community now are using airplanes for spraying and helicopters for very many uses -- fertilizing and spraying and using the wind that comes off the helicopter blades to knock some of the cranberries off the plant so that they can be harvested by their water method. These helicopters buzzing around an urban area cause concern. People have to understand that it is absolutely necessary that farmers use the most up-to-date equipment in trying to be competitive in this price-conscious market we're in.
I've talked to the farmers in my community of Delta; unfortunately, there are no farms at all in my constituency of Delta North, but from where we sit, we overlook the farmland and have a great interest in it. I have talked to farmers in my colleague's constituency -- real farmers -- and at first, when they heard this bill was coming, they said: "Yeah, another sop from government -- some little thing that's not going to work." When I mailed them a copy of the bill and some notes on this, I got another phone call. They said: "This is good legislation; this is the kind of stuff we've been asking for." This is a commitment by this government to protect farmland, and the best way to protect farmland is to make farming a viable and competitive industry; this bill goes a long way toward doing that.
I'm very, very pleased that I had this opportunity to stand up and support this bill. I'll now take my place.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: In the gallery today we have 30 grade 7 students from Little Prairie Elementary School in Chetwynd. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. L. Filgate and a number of parents who are escorting them. They are here to visit the capital city; they drove down by bus from Chetwynd. They have spent some time in the capital; they have also visited our buildings and are here to see our Legislature at work. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to these parents, students and teachers from Chetwynd.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate about strengthening agriculture in British Columbia through the right-to-farm legislation.
[ Page 14649 ]
Port Coquitlam, contrary to what some members of the House may think, is not all urban development. There is a large chunk of my riding that is, in fact, within the ALR and currently farmed -- not the large holdings that are found in some areas of the province, but small family farms. People like Vera Harvey and Karam Dhanwant, who grow some of the best blueberries this side of heaven, both have about ten or 15 acres. They have what used to be very typical out our way, which was ten- and 20-acre parcels of land devoted to things like blueberries, sheep, turkeys, pigs and a few cattle. What's happened over the years is that as growth has come in, these farms have been forced out. What land that is left is very much within the agricultural land reserve.
Over the years people liked living next to the farmland. They like living next to the green space -- the greenbelt, as the real estate agents call it. But they think that with that they shouldn't have to put up with the smell that pigs make, with the odour from the manure that's spread on the fields at springtime and with the venting of the greenhouses, and that somehow they can, as the hon. member for Delta North said, let their dogs run loose to harass the sheep, the turkeys and what have you -- sort of like ex-Socred Premiers who are let loose to pasture, harassing the sheep and the turkeys. They don't know when to leave well enough alone.
It causes real problems for people who are trying to run a family business, to produce food and to operate under a set of rules that are there. Somehow they're under pressure from councils and from people -- that they have to change those rules.
What this legislation does is say no, you have a right to farm. In the agricultural land reserve, if your business is growing blueberries or raising sheep or cattle, or if your business is greenhouses, then as long as you are doing standard agricultural practices, you have a right to pursue your livelihood and not have to worry about being harassed because someone doesn't appreciate the fact that you have to put manure on the fields in the spring. This legislation deals with these problems.
It's not going to bring back some of the industries that left Port Coquitlam, like the pig farms and some of the other agricultural industries, but it's going to make it easier for people like Vera Harvey and Karam Dhanwant to grow their blueberries. It's going to make it easier for people like Penningtons, who run a big turkey farm out on the north side of town, to raise turkeys. But it's also going to require something else, and that is education. People have to realize that if they value the agricultural land reserve in this province for what it does, they have to accept the fact that people have to be able to farm free of interference, free of hindrance.
There is going to be an onus on councils to let the community know that when rezonings take place next to working farms, there are activities associated with farming that some people may find objectionable. There are going to be responsibilities placed on real estate agents when they are selling property or acting as agents in the purchase of property next to farms in the agricultural land reserve. It is not a greenbelt, as prospective purchasers hear all too often. It is farmland; it is a working farm; it is a business; it is a source of employment, a livelihood, for a family and other people. There are activities there that you may or may not agree with, but they will be going on, and you have to take that into account when you make your decision.
This is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. It is a further building block, strengthening the role of the agricultural land reserve in our province. It affects not just traditional, recognized farming areas, such as Matsqui, Abbotsford and the Okanagan, but also areas such as mine, which are directly on that urban agricultural land interface, where the pressures of land development and farming come into conflict on a fairly regular basis. This is a piece of legislation that deserves the support of all members of this House, and I hope that it receives it.
R. Chisholm: I rise today in support of this bill. After all, I have been fighting for this bill for about three and a half years now. It first started with the former Agriculture minister from Okanagan-Boundary, and now it is coming into the House under our present minister. He deserves credit for bringing it here. It's long overdue, and we've needed it in this province for many, many years.
This bill gives farming a reason to be there. It gives it some substance, for a change. This industry, whether people know it or not, has $13 billion worth of infrastructure and creates $1.5 billion a year. But it was always at the beck and call of governments -- municipal and otherwise -- and at the beck and call of developers, as they were being forced out of business. Yet when it came down to the time that this province and this country might have been in trouble, it was the agricultural industry that was the basis of recovery. It was the stabilization base for this country and for this province. It is time that we recognize that fact and recognize that this industry needs some protection too, especially when there are all kinds of people competing for the same lot of land. After all, it's much cheaper to build in the farmland than it is in the hills. It's much less costly; it's much more attractive.
So we have many people vying for small parcels of land. You've heard that the agricultural land in this province is somewhere around 2 percent, yet everybody -- all 3.5 million people, basically -- wants to live there. If we continue in the way we were going, our agricultural land would no longer exist, and our family farms -- the farm business -- would no longer exist. There are attractive businesses out there that make a lot of money, yet we do need food. As a country and a province we have decided that we want to be in agriculture -- that we have to supply some of our own foodstuffs. This is only reasonable, if we don't want to rely on some nation like the United States and then be subject to them turning the tap on whether we pay a higher or a lower price.
Once we made that decision, we then had an obligation to support this industry. We have been rather lax in enforcing it over the years. There's been right-to-farm legislation in other jurisdictions and it has worked very well, and now we have it here. I applaud this minister for finally bringing it forward, and I applaud the former minister for talking to me about it, developing it and getting it to this stage. It is very constructive for this particular industry. This industry is very diversified and it will grow. As people have heard before, 5 percent growth in this industry will create 6,000 jobs. We are in the market for jobs these days, and we need stable jobs. We don't need the McDonald's jobs; we need stability in this province, and this will help us. This will help ensure that stability remains a constant in this province.
[ Page 14650 ]
[11:30]
Through the various speeches, we've heard about regulations and about nuisance bylaws. This will all be debated in the committee stage, and there are some very valid points. People must realize that this is a business and that it will create its share of problems. Those problems need to be debated. There needs to be a forum for people and farmers to go to. It is in this bill. Hopefully, it will work out the way the government sees it. If it doesn't, the bill can be amended in future years as we see this transpire. But at least the infrastructure is there to work with; at least we have the start.
One thing I am a bit concerned about is that this bill doesn't address the different ministries within the government that affect farming. It doesn't address the Environment ministry, the Health ministry or the Forests ministry, but these ministries have a very great effect on agriculture and farming. This should be incorporated in this bill. Again, I will speak further on this in committee stage, but I think the minister should take a look at exactly how these ministries affect agriculture. Maybe there should be something in this bill to facilitate the combining of regulations to make it easier to get rid of the red tape and hurdles we seem to be confronted with daily in the agriculture industry.
As I said, when I take a look at this bill and what the minister has done, I have to commend him, because I've been trying to get this bill in for quite a period of time, and he has finally done it. And he has done it with some ethics; he has done it by going out and talking to the industry. He has talked to the UBCM, which is very good, because if we don't have the people of the province supporting it, no bill will ever work; if we don't have the Union of B.C. Municipalities onside regarding this legislation, it won't work. It's as simple as that. We will just have a lot more hardship. He has consulted with them, so obviously they've had their input. He has consulted with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and they have had their input. They may not be totally happy, but they've had their say and their day in court. I notice he has talked with 16 local governments, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the B.C. Horticultural Council, and so on, and this is good.
But I'd like to say to the minister: "Don't rush to committee stage." I have sent letters to 29 different organizations, asking for a response on the definitions of farm business and farm operations. Let's make sure that everybody has their say. Let's ensure that we do this right, so that we don't have to go back and amend it. If we do, so be it; but let's try to do it right the first time, because the farmers will finally have a bill, and they'll have to live with it for a while. Let us see if we can debate this, do it right and not rush it; give it a week before it comes back here into this House. That will allow the farm community to talk about these definitions. After all, that's what they'll live with for the next four or five decades. It will be very, very harmful if they're not totally satisfied with it or if everybody hasn't had their say.
He has done a great amount of consulting already, and I commend him on it. Let's not, then, just speed up the system so that the rest are left out.
This is great legislation, in my mind, because the legislation protects the farmer; but at the same time it makes the farmer follow the rules, so it's protecting society. Society has a place to go where it can appeal to a board. The farmer has the same right. This legislation is going to be very, very beneficial. This legislation is going to control developers and control municipal governments to some degree. We've all seen the problems throughout the Fraser Valley and throughout the Okanagan. We don't have to sit here and talk about it. All we have to do is drive down the highway, and we can see what has happened to our farmland. This bill will control that to some degree, and hopefully -- as we see this bill go into place when it's enacted -- we'll see in future years that it was beneficial. Like I said, if there are things to be amended, they can be amended at a later date. But the bill is now in the House.
That's about all I'm going to say at this point. I commend the minister for bringing it forward; I commend the minister for discussing it with me and helping to bring it forward, too. It's taken three and a half years, but finally we have a right to farm bill in this province. It's a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the minister on this.
C. Evans: Like so many other members, it's a real pleasure this morning to rise and speak on Bill 22, the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. It's a pleasure because it took a long time to get the bill here; it's a pleasure because there is an air of unanimity in this room this morning -- which I notice has been missing as of late -- as members of all parties stand up to congratulate the minister on this particular piece of legislation.
I want to talk for a second about how this bill got into this room, at least from my own experience. Last year, shortly after the present minister became Minister of Agriculture, there was a meeting called in Creston in my constituency. People came from hundreds of miles away from all the agricultural sectors: the beef sector was there, as were the vegetable, grain, hog, chicken, milk and orchard sectors -- orchardists. The minister quite openly said to the group: "I'm here as your servant. We're going to go through a day of discussing what you do and what I do and how government impacts on your lives, and we'll try to work toward some changes that you might find useful."
Talking to farmers is talking to a group of people who, I think, can justifiably claim to have a little bit of cynicism when a politician comes to town and says: "What can I do for you?" For all we love to promote the sanctity of the agricultural land reserve, we're talking to a group of people who are actually paying the price of the agricultural land reserve for all society and getting no credit for it. We're trying to talk to a group of people.... Although every one of us, at least a couple of times a day -- or maybe three and, for some of us, four or five times -- sits down to eat and every one of us needs them, mostly the only relationship that we have verbally to the product they make is to complain about the price of it. When somebody comes from out of town and says, "I'd like to work with you to make your job easier," I think it's understandable that the people in the room might have a note of "prove it" in their voice or a "show-me" look in their eye.
Over the course of that day, what I basically heard the people say was: "Almost every single one of us could make more money doing something else. Some of us are really good at business; we could open a cappuccino bar and probably make a whack of money. Some of us are really quite good at logging -- log all winter in order to farm in the summer -- and we could probably make more money if we ran our skidders than our tractors. Some of us are sitting on a great, valuable amount of capital as land, and we could probably make a lot of money if we just left. We're farming, basically,
[ Page 14651 ]
because it's in our blood. We love what we do; we are proud of what we do. And even if the general society doesn't believe it, we think that if the society quits producing food -- if we quit -- civilization or society here can no longer function."
But they said: "You know, it irritates us that all we hear in the press, sometimes even in the school room, sometimes from politicians, are complaints about what we do and how we do it -- complaints about the pesticides that we use; complaints about the dust that we make; in the Creston Valley, complaints about the smoke when you have to burn stubble off in the fall; complaints about the orchardists having to shoot the occasional deer that's there to eat their trees; complaints about the price -- on and on."
Then you know what rankles worst? We have grants -- sacrosanct grants that nobody dares touch -- to the mining industry, so you can go out and prospect and get a grubstake; it always has been that way. We have grants to the forest industry that basically pay the costs of building the roads; they used to pay all the costs of planting the trees. We have huge, whacking support for the forest industry that we call tenure, which means you have the right to trees, which allows you to go borrow money. We have supports for just about every kind of industry that exists, but in farming we call those subsidies. For everybody else we call it business, but in farming we call it a subsidy.
Everybody likes to stand up and say: "The farmer has got his hand out again." Every time the farmer tries to say, "We need to have a level playing field," and government attempts to intervene, for some reason the press, the public, people who work here want to call that a subsidy. What they said to the minister is: "It kind of rankles to work as many hours as we do and as hard as we do and have somebody talking about us as if we were looking for a handout."
So over the course of the day what I heard them say is: "No, let's not deal right now with the NAFTA questions or the free trade questions, the import-export questions, the dumping questions, the price support questions. Let's deal with the question of whether those other people actually want us to exist at all. Let's go out and say: 'Do you want us to farm? And if you don't want us to farm, let's sell this land, and we'll go logging instead. We'll go open a store instead or we'll retire somewhere instead'."
I think the minister and his staff heard those people in the weeks and months between that meeting and, I presume, other meetings that were similar. I know they were held in every region of the province, and I assume they were somewhat the same where other members live. The weeks and months were spent constructing a piece of legislation that nobody -- even the people who work up there, and let the record show that he points to where the press work -- could construe as any kind of subsidy. This is about your right to do what you do.
I now want to talk about those weeks and months. Some of us are sometimes accused of being a little hasty. We get an idea in our mind, jump to our feet and want to change the world. Following those meetings, this particular minister had conversations with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the B.C. Horticulture Council. Then, because those are all agricultural groups, in order to make sure that there was a buy-in from the wider society, the minister met with 16 local governments, including 206 elected officials representing the vast majority -- 70 or 80 percent of all the farmland in British Columbia. He also met with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which some of us think is sort of an urban-dominated group. He also met with the Urban Development Institute of B.C. and the GVRD Agriculture Advisory Committee in order to try to construct a right-to-farm law which would not immediately be the subject of opposition by the three-quarters or seven-eighths of the people in the province who consume food rather than produce it. That means that it took until this sitting of the Legislature to make this law. It also means, I think, that we can pretty much expect unaminity. We're not going to have a party-against-party fight here, or even rural against urban, because the minister talked to those people before we got the law here, and I think we should appreciate that.
[11:45]
I want to talk a little bit about what the law actually says, because all you're going to read in the newspaper -- if you read it on the bottom of page 16 -- is that the minister has brought in a right-to-farm bill. For the sake of some of the people who might actually care, I want to talk about some parts of the act.
The bill says that a board will be created to decide what normal farm activity is, and that neighbours can't go to court and get an injunction against their farming neighbours for activities that are normal farming activities. You cannot strike down activities -- and it says it right here -- on the basis of an application to cease that is "trivial." You can't make a farmer stop activities on the basis of an application that is "frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith." You can't make an application to stop a farmer's activities if "the complainant" -- the person making the application -- "does not have a sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the application" -- in other words, if they don't live there.
If an application saying that a farmer's activities are unacceptable is brought to the board, and the board decides that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and a hearing is held, it says right here in black and white that the hearing will be "open to the public and may be conducted in an informal manner." To me, that means that the apple grower doesn't have to hire six lawyers to go to the hearing to say what normal production methods are in the growing of apples. This is a law written on purpose to function in an informal way, rather than in a way like in a court of law.
It goes on to say that the board or the panel may "accept evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law." In other words, you can actually go to this hearing and say what your experience is, not necessarily what some judge would allow you to say. It goes on to say.... And this is important, because what I heard farmers in Creston saying was: "Yes, you can create some kind of law that will help us, but then it's going to function in a way that the bureaucrats win or the lawyers win or the developers win." That would mean, of course, that the panel hearing the application could be rendered dysfunctional if any member of the panel ceased to go to the meetings. No, this law says that if a member of the panel doesn't go to the hearing, the other members have the right to hold the hearing in their absence and render a judgment. It goes on to say who this board will be. It will be the members of the B.C. Marketing Board and "ten additional members whom the minister may appoint to the Farm Practices Board." It will be chaired by the chair of the B.C. Marketing Board. I think that means we are saying to farmers that
[ Page 14652 ]
there will be people there who understand the business of the marketing boards and agriculture, because they are there to represent the farmers whose products go through the Marketing Board in the first place.
It then goes on to talk about how the Municipal Act and various provincial laws will be impacted, and about the Land Title Act. To speak in generalizations, it basically says that subdivision will not be encouraged if "the...subdivision would unreasonably interfere with farming operations on adjoining or reasonably adjacent properties." It goes on to amend the Municipal Act and add the following subsection: "Despite section 950 of this act" -- and that means the Municipal Act -- "...a board must not exercise the powers...to prohibit or restrict the use of land for a farm business in a farming area, unless the board receives the approval of the minister responsible for the administration of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act."
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that the Municipal Act is being amended as well so that municipal bylaws will not be used against farmers. I think that's exactly what the farmers are asking us to do. Why are they asking us to do it? I talked just a bit about the agricultural land reserve. The people who work in this building decided to freeze land that had agricultural potential. I'm quite proud, of course, of that legislation, and of being part of the party that brought it in. We as politicians are guilty, though, of the failure of not having supported that piece of legislation. After all, all governments for 20 years maintained that piece of legislation, but we did not support it so that the people trying to do what we told them to do, which was farm the land, could actually do it. We have created a situation where the provincial government would say: "You have to farm the land; you can't subdivide it." And then the local regional district would create laws that made it basically against the law to farm it. Or if you went out to spray your apples, it would make the spraying against the law, and then stand up and say: "Oh no, you can have an orchard; it's only spraying the orchard that we won't let you do. You can have a barn full of pigs; it's only emptying the barn that we won't let you do."
That's hypocrisy, you know. That's the people working in this building trying to look like the good guys -- making the law to defend agriculture and then, at the same time, allowing other processes, other governments, other bureaucracies, to get in the way of actually trying to do what we asked them to do. What the right-to-farm act is trying to do is remove those anomalies, so that we essentially put our money where our mouth is.
I want to talk a little about what it will take to make this law work. Everybody knows -- everybody who works here, and everybody who raises chickens -- that because we write a law, it doesn't mean that it will function. Firstly, there's going to be an obligation on farmers. This law is different than a right-to-farm law in any other province in Canada in that it says it will require cooperation from municipal levels of government -- municipalities and regional districts. This law says we will use the tools of planning -- which means people getting together and deciding what to do with land, and then creating regulations that apply -- to encourage agriculture instead of oppose it.
It will not work unless the farming community in British Columbia puts up candidates for municipal office and then pays attention to what those candidates do once they get elected. I guarantee you that ten years from now this law will be declared a failure unless friends of agriculture, who actually understand agriculture, are on regional districts all through at least the rural parts of this province. So I would suggest to farmers that they are going to have to find members in their communities who will speak in defence of their industry and put those people up for office.
Secondly, the bill says that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is going to prepare information for developers and real estate agents to disseminate to their clients before they sell land. What is that information likely to be? I hope it advises people what kind of community they're moving into. What is the availability of water? What are the zoning regulations? Are we going to allow them to subdivide in future? What industrial activities take place in that community? I've been hoping somebody would do that for 20 years. It's going to depend on the real estate agent actually being more interested in the welfare of their client than in making money, because they're going to have to actually hand that information to the homebuyer who comes to see them. I hope the real estate and development industries participate in the long run in making this law work, so that more interventionist legislation is not required.
The law says we will make information available for public schools, so that teachers working in agricultural areas can actually help young people understand the needs of agriculture. This might seem like a trivial thing, but it comes right straight out of the meeting in Creston that I was in. There were farmers there saying: "How come my child, my sister-in-law's child or my neighbour's child goes to school, comes back and says that the pesticides we use are unacceptable? How come they're teaching things in our schools that run contrary to the needs of agriculture?" The law is going to provide materials for the public school system, but it's going to require that teachers assist us to disseminate that information.
Lastly, it's going to require that the general public in British Columbia care about where their food comes from. I want to say this to the people who are selling their homes and moving to Creston from Vancouver -- or from Calgary, although it's harder to communicate with those people. The people who own the green space in Creston, the Okanagan, Grand Forks or Duncan are not there to provide pastoral places for your eyes to rest on or to increase the value of your property. Those green spaces are there to make a living; they are an industry. It is completely unacceptable for people to move into rural areas and then demand the same level of service they had when they left Surrey, New Westminster or Vancouver. It's completely unacceptable for those people to move in and then say that the farmers' green land is there to be green space, not to be a business.
I would hope that all the urban MLAs who are going to stand up in a couple of days and vote for the minister's bill will go home and say to their media that they have a role to play too -- that this law is only going to work if everybody, wherever they live, believes in the right to farm. If we don't believe in the right to farm, I would submit that we are going to create a society of children or grandchildren who come after us, eating poisoned food from nations without controls, picked by workers without any labour laws to defend them, imported by the lowest bidder, and that we will become politically subject to manipulation by the world's food market. The law, as well as society, depends on everybody to defend what we're calling here today the right to farm.
[ Page 14653 ]
Thank you for allowing me to discuss this matter. I move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: Not having been here this morning, I assume -- I'll cover it -- that the House is sitting tomorrow.
A. Warnke: I did hear the minister refer to meeting tomorrow. Was that just a mistake?
Deputy Speaker: It is simply pursuant to standing orders to advise the House that we will indeed be sitting tomorrow.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:14 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
L. Fox: Prior to getting into the main topic I want to discuss with respect to these estimates, I want to bring two particular individual cases to the attention of the minister. I think they are indicators of much confusion and concern in the minds of British Columbians. I don't believe the minister will be aware of either of these cases, but this is not an attempt to embarrass the minister or anything along those lines. It's an attempt to bring these two concerns forward so that we can all be aware of some of the difficulties that are being faced by British Columbians.
[10:15]
The first one that I want to make the minister aware of concerns a lady from Victoria, who actually just called my office yesterday. It's a very sad case. Her husband needs to see a specialist at UBC hospital, and has had his appointments cancelled three times. They're on a very low income. They need some kind of assistance to get him there. Previously she had a family member in Vancouver who was prepared to look after him and take him there. That family member unfortunately died. The lady called the travel assistance program and was told she should go to social assistance. The social assistance agency told her that she doesn't qualify. In the meantime, she's supposed to have her husband at UBC by June 7 and has no means to get him there.
This individual's name is Mrs. Knudson. For the record, perhaps I could ask the minister if somewhere within the ministry they have the capabilities of helping this particular family. Her phone number is 474-3824.
We have a number of these kinds of cases, and I know it's very difficult in the large picture of medicare to give individual attention to every one of these very, very complex and difficult issues. I would ask the minister this morning if there is something available through his ministry that would give this lady some comfort and some help to get her husband over for his heart surgery. This would be greatly appreciated.
The other case that I wanted.... I just got off the phone with this person who is from College Heights in Prince George. This is another very sad case where this lady's son, who's now 20, at the age of three fell down and had a very serious head injury. He is now in the category of handicapped and has been since that point in time.
His mentality, or his educated ability, is around the age of three or four. This individual was referred to Willows in Richmond two and a half years ago on the guarantee given to Willows at that time that when he was discharged, there would be a group home available to him in Prince George. That guarantee was made by Social Services at the time. Two and a half years later -- and I recognize there is some overlap here between Social Services and the Ministry of Health.... The young man was to be released a year and a half ago, and there still isn't a spot in Prince George to put him.
The mother, who is a student at CNC, surviving primarily on student loans, is having great difficulty accepting this, even to the point where she has suggested that she would see him placed anywhere in the province and move to that community just to get her son out of Willows and to be back close to him.
Why I identify this at this time, and I will certainly raise it later with the Minister of Social Services.... In fact, I thought her estimates were going to be on this morning, as they were yesterday. Why I raise this at this time is because I think it shows -- and I think the minister is well aware -- that community services are really not as plentiful or as available for the handicapped, the schizophrenic, and so on, as they might be. I think we're going to have to pay some very close attention.
The group home that this young man was in, unfortunately, closed in the very same.... The young fellow was removed and transferred to Willows in April, the group home that he was in closed in September and there hasn't been a facility available to accommodate him in Prince George, even though there has been some attempt by Social Services to do it.
I just make the minister aware of those concerns. Here again, this lady's name is Marcy Lindstrom, and she asked me to make that known to the minister. I could provide the minister, once again, with the phone number -- it's 964-6666. If any part of his ministry can help people find placements, I would appreciate it. I will allow the minister to comment, if he wants.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will ask ministry officials to contact both the individuals, and if you have other information that
[ Page 14654 ]
would be useful, I would ask you to make it available. Let me just comment briefly. The first one, as I understand it, is a matter of whether a person has sufficient income and resources to determine whether or not she is going to qualify for social assistance for help getting to a physician's appointment in Vancouver. As the member says, both of these issues are really in the hands of the Ministry of Social Services, though the issues concern, at times, health conditions. I will ask ministry staff to make sure that we have good information on both cases for the member and myself.
The only other thing I'd say is that the budget we are debating before this committee has an overall lift for health spending of some 4 percent -- probably the highest increase in the health budget of anywhere in Canada. Within that, this year, as we have done for the past couple of years, we have deliberately said that we need to spend more on community-based services. Therefore, while the budget allows for a 3 percent increase in funding for hospitals and acute care facilities, it also includes increases in excess of that for community-based services and prevention programs.
The direction of this budget is to recognize the need for increased community-based services. While I think the two incidents the member has brought forward lie, as far as line responsibility, with the Minister of Social Services, I'll have this ministry's staff contact appropriate offices and see what the facts of the cases are.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for his commitment to do that. I recognize putting names and phone numbers forward is a bit unusual. I did that because both those individuals asked me to so that it was on the record. Normally one would pay attention to the global rather than the specific issue, but I did that on behalf of those two individuals.
Now I want to get into a bit of philosophical debate with the minister. I know there has been much discussed in recent months, certainly since the federal budget cuts in transfer payments have been projected, around health care. Would the minister give me his interpretation or definition of what he believes universality means in terms of one of the five objectives of our health care system?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It means that all Canadians have access to the same set of health services on an equal basis.
L. Fox: I apologize; I missed the last few words. I couldn't hear the minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the Canada Health Act defines it well. It says that there shouldn't be any financial barriers to access for medically necessary services and that unlike the U.S. and other jurisdictions that have a variety of schemes for acquiring health services, this Canada Health Act and the provincial health systems should cover all people to the same extent. There shouldn't be variations based on ability to pay.
L. Fox: Does the minister mean this around core programs? In universality, are we considering the fact that different regions will offer different services and different specialties in terms of the core...? How does the minister equate all that when he talks about universal health care?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Universality applies to medically necessary services. Various provinces have made a variety of additions to those core services. In this province, for example, we cover a variety of supplemental practitioner services or subsidize them through supplemental budgets. These include chiropractic services, as well as physiotherapy, massage therapy and naturopathy. Other provinces may not do that, but the principle is clear that for medically necessary services there should be universal availability and access.
L. Fox: If I take those words literally, as the minister suggests, then the fact that we have a different ratio of doctors available per population base throughout the province.... I'm not going to spout a bunch of statistics, but the minister is well aware that this ratio changes dramatically from community to community. Would the minister agree that we presently do not have universality in our health care system?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would not agree.
L. Fox: In Vanderhoof I may wait a month to see a doctor; to see one in Vancouver I can walk in off the street. How, then, can the minister suggest that there is universality in the availability of health care?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If I understand the member, he is getting in to see a doctor.
L. Fox: I'm sorry. Maybe I'm hard of hearing, but I can't understand the minister when he speaks that quickly. I didn't get the response.
Hon. P. Ramsey: If I understand what the member said, he did get in to see a physician. I will elaborate just slightly. I surely recognize -- I think all provinces recognize -- that although we have sufficient physicians in our country to provide good medical service to everybody, at times the distribution of those physicians is not what would be optimal. In this province, as in other provinces, efforts are underway to do some redistribution of physicians.
The member and I both come from a part of the province that, over the last decade or so, has at one time or another experienced shortages of one specialty or at times even of general practitioners. Currently there is, I think, a severe need for additional practitioners up in the Peace country, particularly in Fort St. John.
In the past, the ridings that we share around Prince George had a shortage of general practitioners in the broad area. That is by and large not the case now. There are occasionally shortages of specialists. The reality is that all people in the province have access to physician services, and they have them on the same basis.
L. Fox: So what the minister is saying to me is that he views universality to be that you did get access to a doctor. Whether you got access within a month or within hours has no real bearing on what he considers universality to be.
[10:30]
I carry that forward and suggest that the fact that we have to send people for orthopedics from Prince George to wherever and that there may be a substantial waiting list or time frame between when they need the service and when they get it isn't important. The fact is that universality still applies, because at the end of the day, somewhere down the
[ Page 14655 ]
road, they had access to an orthopedic surgeon. Is that the way I understand the minister's explanation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try one more time. Universality means that neither you nor I nor your banker nor the person who bakes your bread have to pull out their wallets when they go to see a physician and that it is universally accessible to all on the same conditions.
There's another principle in the Canada Health Act that I think the member is talking about a good deal, and that is access to services. The Canada Health Act says that provinces must ensure reasonable access to health services for everybody within the province.
[A. Hagen in the chair.]
At times I will surely admit that there are difficulties -- sometimes because of particular circumstances of physician availability -- as far as access in a way that I think both he and I would consider optimal is concerned. To say that somehow this is a failure of the principle of universality is ignoring the reality of what the Parliament of Canada meant when it passed that act.
A. Warnke: I want to extend my appreciation to the member for Prince George-Omineca for allowing me to speak. I also want to ask a couple of questions of the minister along these lines. I'll precede it this way: in responding to the member for Prince George-Omineca, the minister made reference to standards equal to all. I believe that was a phrase the member might have missed, because it didn't quite hit the microphone.
I appreciate what the minister has given us as an answer -- that the Canada Health Act is fashioned in such a way that when we talk about accessibility as one of the five main principles of delivering health services to Canadians, it is in a context of trying to set up a system whereby everyone has reasonable access to the health system. On the other hand -- and I too want to follow up philosophically what the member for Prince George-Omineca has put forward about universality -- several times in this chamber, I've heard the Minister of Health put forward the notion that we no longer have universality.
I was under the impression that the Canada Health Act is pretty explicit and that we have universal access to health care resources, medicare and all the rest of it. But the minister has implied several times that somehow this is being compromised by the federal system of transfer payments -- that when $1 billion is cut in terms of transfer payments to the provinces, that directly affects universality. I've heard this several times.
What the member for Prince George-Omineca raises is an extremely important point. It's almost one of the main points of this session: that several times the Minister of Health has sent out clear messages that universality has been compromised as a result of the federal government's policy on health care. I may even want to elaborate on that a little bit later. So far -- and I've read Hansard very, very carefully -- I have not seen anything explicit from this minister in the entire session and certainly not in these Health debates. I've read Hansard, so it's not necessary to say that I wasn't around.
I haven't seen anything explicit in terms of an argument that suggests that the federal Minister of Health or the federal government will cut transfer payments to British Columbia by $1 billion and that part of this is explicitly for cutting back on health. I haven't seen that; I haven't seen the minister concede that particular point. Maybe we'll explore it a little bit later on. On the other hand, the implication has been clear on several occasions that universality has been compromised. So when the member for Prince George-Omineca raises this point and the minister's first response is that all Canadians have access to the same set of health standards equal to all, it is that point the member really wants to flesh out.
I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I hear over the course of the estimates debate and over the course of the session as a whole, as well as in some public statements, two very contradictory messages. It is in that context I think the Minister of Health. I'd appreciate trying to develop some sort of clarification. What the heck is going on if universality is being compromised? If it's not being compromised -- and in my view I don't think it is.... As a matter of fact, it is my view that the federal Minister of Health has made it very clear that universality is still intact and an objective of the federal government.
For anyone to suggest or hint or even go beyond implying that it is anything but that, I find very objectional. So it's this point I would like the minister to clarify for us. After that, perhaps we can pursue some other aspects that the member for Prince George-Omineca is seeking.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is interesting to hear the member opposite rise to debate the effects of the federal budget on health. First, let's get the financial facts straight. The federal Finance minister announced that in 1996-97 cash transfers to British Columbia for health, social services and post-secondary education will be reduced by $457 million. In 1997-98 they will be reduced by $801 million. This represents a substantial withdrawal by the federal government from financial support for Health and other social services. In the current fiscal year, the federal government will transfer just over $17 billion for those programs to the ten provinces. Less than two years from now, those cash transfers will be reduced to $10 billion. This is nearly a 40 percent reduction over two years.
I would suggest that it doesn't take a very fancy calculator to realize that, at that rate, in five or six years the federal government will not be transferring one dime to British Columbia or any province to pay for Health or other social services. I submit that therein lies the threat to the Canadian medicare system. It is fine to talk about principles. The Prime Minister has talked about the principles of the Canada Health Act, but clearly some have seen the substantial, unilateral federal withdrawal from support for medicare as a threat to those principles.
I don't know what magazines or periodicals the member opposite reads on health issues. Over the last year, I have repeatedly seen advocates of user fees and a privately funded system for delivering medically necessary services step forward, particularly since the budget has come down, and say: "Well, if the federal government is not willing to put in its share, then maybe we should step in. Maybe it's time to throw away the principles of medicare. The federal government seems to be throwing them away. We have an answer for you." They are advocating this increasingly across the country.
The member opposite shakes his head and says that is not what he meant at all. The reality is...
[ Page 14656 ]
A. Warnke: You're misrepresenting the federal position.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member suggests that I have misrepresented the federal position. I would ask him to actually read the federal budget, and to actually read the magnitude of reductions in cash that is coming to provinces. To say that this somehow doesn't represent a serious threat to the Canadian health system is a total misunderstanding of the magnitude of these withdrawals of federal support.
It's particularly serious in a province like British Columbia, which faces a growing population and therefore an increasing demand for health services. This province, like other provinces across the country, has been working hard the last three years to do some restructuring of the health system, get more efficiencies into delivery of services and get the maximum health benefit out of every tax dollar.
The federal government, without consultation with the provinces on what stable long-term funding for medicare might be, has unilaterally chosen to take a meat axe to the health transfer payments. I submit that I have said this repeatedly, and I'll say it again in this committee: that does represent a threat by the federal Liberal government to the principles of medicare.
Finally, not only have we heard about the impact of this, but we have surely heard the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party in this House say that these cuts haven't gone far enough and that in order to be fiscally responsible we need to chop even further at government-delivered services. Cuts of the magnitude of those being proposed by the federal government are not trimming around the edges. They represent a fundamental attack on health services, and all members in the chamber should realize that.
If we're talking a reduction of, say, $350 million.... Say the health portion of the $800 million cut in two years turned out to be $350 million. That is approximately the size of the entire Pharmacare program that we were debating in this chamber yesterday -- not a readjustment of benefits, not a little trimming around the edges, but elimination of the entire program. It represents approximately three times the amount of money that this budget contains for all supplemental services -- physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage therapy, naturopathy, optometry and podiatry. It is just about $60 million less than the entire long term care budget, both institutional and home support. When we talk about reductions of this magnitude, we're not talking about trimming around the edges. This is a fundamental attack on the principles of medicare.
What is most distressing is that at the same time as this budget announces these sorts of savage attacks on health transfers, the Prime Minister -- maybe he's badly briefed -- seems to want to redefine what Canadian medicare is about, saying: "Well, it only had to do with catastrophic illness and injury. That's what we were really talking about when we invented medicare. We weren't interested in things like home support, prevention campaigns or things that keep people from becoming catastrophically ill. Maybe we should only look at a Canadian medicare system that covers doctors and hospitals."
Everybody who has been involved in looking at how health services are delivered over the years has said that's the wrong answer. We need to look at more prevention and promotion programs. We need to look at a wider range of community-based services. This government and others have been working to deliver them.
Finally, I would say that there is one thing that was perhaps a little prescient of the Prime Minister. In one of the interviews I read, he said that federal support for medicare was only intended as a temporary measure when it was introduced back in the seventies. I find that to be an alarming view. If we are going to have a Canadian medicare system, rather than ten provincial systems, surely federal involvement in support for that system, both of the principles and of the funding, is essential. What I hear is a rush of feet as the federal Liberals dash away from those principles, yet pretend that somehow cuts of this magnitude are simply reductions of waste and inefficiency. I don't think the Pharmacare program is an example of waste or inefficiency, nor do I think any other cuts of this magnitude can be dealt with by tinkering with the edges of services.
[10:45]
A. Warnke: Well, here the minister goes again. Without getting into the specifics of how the five basic principles of medicare are going to be compromised, the minister uses words like: "There's a substantial withdrawal." Sure, there's a substantial withdrawal of whatever, but the minister has not made a direct linkage between the federal budget -- the cuts in transfers and all the rest of it -- and its effects on the provincial budget. I know it's going to affect the provincial budget. Sure, the provincial Minister of Health is now under constraints. The provincial Minister of Health cannot operate as ministers have in the past. Ministers cannot just assume that this is a growth industry and that they can grow the budget.
The fact is that nowhere has there been a statement made by the federal Minister of Health or by the Prime Minister of Canada. In critiquing those two people, the minister has not shown that as a result of a substantial withdrawal of funds, the five principles were going to be compromised -- in particular, the one about universality we were discussing this morning, which has been raised in this House over and over again this session. The implication is that universality is going to be compromised as a result of substantial withdrawals. Hon. Chair, the minister has not made a case.
The situation is this: a federal Minister of Health, a Prime Minister, a Premier and a provincial Minister of Health operate under the five principles. If we all believe universality is one of them, then you accept the premise of universality. You adjust the budgets: you tighten up or you expand wherever necessary, but you still operate under the premise that there is universality. We pursue universality; we pursue portability; we pursue accessibility and all the rest of it. The fact is that you operate with these premises.
Nowhere has this Minister of Health made a case that as a result of the reduction of transfer payments.... Incidentally, it is applied across the provinces. Every Minister of Health, federal or provincial, faces these kinds of problems of how to develop a budget and all the rest of it. At the same time, there is nothing that suggests: "Oh well, because we have to tighten our belts, we're going to compromise on the principles." If Ralph Klein in Alberta wants to go off in some sort of direction, frankly, I couldn't care less about his policy peccadilloes. But somehow that's fallacious to draw a conclusion: "Oh, this is an example of one person who's saying one thing therefore it must be applied to all Liberal provincial Premiers."
[ Page 14657 ]
The fact is that, yes, the Canadian medicare system faces a very difficult financial situation. But I think it is incorrect -- and it can't be emphasized enough -- for this particular minister to say in the House that universality is being compromised as a result of federal policy, when he has not made a case -- not one bit. As a matter of fact, the minister's comments and responses to the member for Prince George-Omineca, if anything reinforce the fact -- he even contradicts himself on statements he's made in the House earlier -- that universality is intact and is a basic premise of the federal government and, fortunately, this provincial government.
Frankly, I think the minister has his approaches turned upside down. You start with the premises of the five principles of medicare policy, and I don't see those being compromised. It's quite clear what this minister is trying to do. If he is allowed to say: "Well, there are substantial withdrawals, and therefore there's a threat to the Canadian medicare system, and the threat is going to compromise...." If we accept that as a basic premise, then the threat is going to compromise the five principles. If the five principles are going to be compromised, that means the federal Liberal government is really bad; that means all Liberals are really bad.
We see through this political nonsense the minister is trying to project. I would say that the minister, instead of trying to play politics.... If we see through that business and if the member for Prince George-Omineca sees through it, then I think it's very fair to go right back to the basics and say: "Okay, we accept the principles and recognize that others -- not just this NDP government in British Columbia -- also recognize the principles of universality." You start with that as a premise.
Now the member for Prince George-Omineca is trying to follow through the logical implications of what the minister is saying. The minister did clearly say -- in his first response to "How do you define universality?" -- that all Canadians have access to the same set of health standards equal to all. It's that magic word "equal" that the member for Prince George-Omineca is really quite concerned about. Are you really committed to it? How can you define equality? As far as I'm concerned, if the minister wants to say it really means that everyone has reasonable access, fine. But then this minister should not imply that somehow we can really provide something in strict equality terms when, in fact, the minister knows better.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I haven't heard such a rousing defence of Paul Martin's budget since Paul Martin tabled it in the Federal parliament -- amazing. I think we do indeed have two halves of the same party, and probably the same approach to health care. Let's talk just a little bit more about it.
The member should sharpen his own vision and recognize what is going on. It is not simply this Minister of Health who has rung the alarm bells on the effect of the federal budget cuts to health care. At a meeting convened in Vancouver on April 10 and 11, all provincial Health ministers came together to look at the impacts of this and assess what they needed to do. Unanimously, even your friends from Alberta signed a communique that said very clearly that the federal government has embarked on the wrong approach. For a generation, the provincial and federal levels of government had built a partnership on medicare. There was a partnership around the principles and funding for the services that made those principles a reality. Now we have a federal government unilaterally walking away from that partnership.
The provincial Health ministers' meeting in April in Vancouver called on the federal Minister of Health to meet urgently with the provincial ministers to discuss the impact of the Martin budget and how she and the federal government proposed that this could or should be dealt with by their provincial counterparts. We said that this was an urgent issue for this province and for other provinces, and we suggested that in that sense of urgency, at least, we ought to try to get a meeting together before the end of May.
I must tell the hon. member that correspondence with the federal minister to date, as far as arranging a time and place for that meeting, has been momentously unsuccessful. The federal Liberal government doesn't seem to see the urgency. There are ten provincial Health ministers who see the urgency. There is one federal Health minister who says that it's no problem. And now I hear this member stand up and say: "No problem." I submit that he, like his federal counterparts, has it wrong.
Let's just look at some other details. The member says that universality as a principle is not threatened. I find that passing strange. If I remember correctly, I heard the leader of the Reform Party stand up in our Legislature and say that because of the financial stresses and strains on medicare, we need in this province to look at imposing user fees and an expansion of for-profit medicine. I heard that. If that doesn't represent a clear threat to the principles of universality, I'm not at all sure what I'm hearing. But the member opposite would deny that somehow the federal withdrawal of funding for medicare has not left the door open for this point of view to stalk in. I submit that he is wrong -- it has.
Most provinces, to their credit, have said: "No, we're not going to open that door." British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario -- a variety of provinces -- have said that. Across the mountains in Alberta, there's at least one provincial government that seems to want to crack that door open and perhaps put out the welcome mat. I know that some other provinces are considering a similar approach to user fees and to two-tier medicine.
To suggest that the threat to medicare caused by this recent Liberal budget and by the future reductions in health transfers it contains is a figment of my imagination that's been made up for political purposes in this chamber misrepresents the serious concern that all provincial Health ministers, regardless of political stripe -- whether they're New Democrat or Liberal or Conservative -- share on this point. They share the same view that there is a threat and an abandonment of partnership.
Finally, just to look at the actual ways in which enforcement of universality occurs, I would ask the member to consider what levers the federal government is going to have in its hands to ensure that Canadian medicare exists. The Canada Health Act provides for one lever. If they find a province that has violated the principles of the act, they have the right under law to withhold cash transfer payments. I don't think it takes a genius to recognize that when those transfer payments have diminished to zero, there is no effective lever to make sure we have a Canadian medicare system, not ten provincial systems. Some provinces -- this province, under this government -- are committed to having those principles adhered to in design and delivery of health services; other provinces are not similarly committed.
When I hear other parties in this House stand up and say very clearly that they're not sure they're committed to them,
[ Page 14658 ]
that maybe we should look at more for-profit medicine, and that maybe we need to look at user fees as a way of buffering this, I think the people of this province have every reason to be concerned about the future of medicare in this province. They hear the Liberal opposition leader stand up and say: "Well, heck, $800 million cut? That's nothing; we can deal with it. By the way, we're going to cut corporate taxes by another $1 billion. No problem, we'll do all that. By the way, I think Ralph's got a good approach to cutting services." I think the people of the province have every right to be concerned. I surely am, and I tend to continue to make members of the public in British Columbia aware of the nature of the Liberal threat to medicare.
A. Warnke: I don't want to go on too long. The fact is that the threat as portrayed by the minister -- and I didn't say there is no threat.... When a federal budget has stated that we have some very serious financial problems in the country and therefore what we want to do is embark on a strategy that puts our fiscal house in order, I'm sure this minister understands the implications and the nature of that. If he doesn't, then I think this minister has to go back to a few textbooks -- beyond magazines and a few journals and that sort of thing.
I think the minister himself could perhaps look at something a little bit more serious as well. I recognize -- and I think everyone throughout this country recognizes -- the approach of the federal government in terms of planning its fiscal strategy and all the rest of it. Again the hon. minister has made the simple mistake of saying that as a result of a general budget cutback.... The minister still has not made the case that as a result of federal financial strategy, principles will be compromised.
This minister should be aware that for the last 30 years plus, ever since medicare was instituted in this country, there have always been those people who would like to say that medicare should be compromised and that maybe we should take a look at some other forms of providing medicare service to Canadians and all the rest of it. Just because they exist doesn't mean that's the agenda, and that's where we're all going.
[11:00]
It's quite the contrary, hon. Chair. I'm really quite surprised at that. Simply put, the threat to medicare, to use the term of the minister, is not equal to a commitment to compromising the principles of medicare. That's a point I really want to get across this morning, because I have heard it plenty of times, not explicitly but implicitly, that somehow on this side of the House we've accepted a compromise on the principles of universality.
I've gone through Hansard very, very carefully. I have not heard the Health critic on our side compromise that principle; I've not heard the federal Minister of Health compromise that principle. Quite the contrary; there's a commitment to maintaining universality. This morning the minister even implied that portability will be compromised. I have not heard that from the federal Finance minister and the Health minister -- quite the contrary from the federal Health minister. I've not heard that from the opposition critic here in British Columbia -- quite the contrary.
I've heard nothing but a commitment, as does the minister have a commitment, to portability. Therefore I think the minister has been too easily seduced into taking a few ideas and then jumping to conclusions. Perhaps he is doing this for political purposes -- to make political gains by trying to box the opposition. I am not sure the minister is even being fair to the Reform Party. To be quite honest, I think he has misrepresented their views as well.
On the other hand, I do recognize that we should not belabour this point. Canadians have made a commitment to the five principles which make up the system of medicare. The federal government has made their commitment to the five principles of medicare very clear. The NDP provincial government has also made it clear that they're committed to those principles. I want to point out that the provincial government does not have a monopoly on this. Indeed, if the NDP government was responsible for taking the whole financial picture into account, you know what they would do? I'll tell you. They would arrive at the same decision. They would say that we have to get the nation's financial health in order. They would say that we have to do some very serious belt tightening in the medicare and health areas, but that we are still committed to the five principles of medicare.
I am not fooled one bit by the portrayal given by this Minister of Health -- the same portrayal he has given us all year. I'm not fooled one bit by the NDP government when it jumps to the magic conclusion that just because we're saying we should get our federal and provincial financial houses in order, we're going to compromise the principles of universality and portability. I leave it to my hon. friend from Prince George-Omineca to follow up on this.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think this is an invigorating skirmish. We may have an opportunity to pursue this later in other venues. Again, let's put on record what this provincial government has said to the federal government on the need to become fiscally responsible. Far from saying that we don't think they need to get their deficit under control, we have urged them to do so. Far from saying that cuts do not have to be made, we identified a series of initiatives for them which we believe should have been adopted more vigorously than was the case. These initiatives included a reduction in subsidies to regions and businesses, as well as a reduction of the wasteful overlap and duplication with provincial levels of government. Such duplication occurs in the delivery of health services. It surely happens in training and post-secondary areas, as well as in some areas of economic activity.
We presented them with concrete numbers and a concrete plan for meeting their deficit targets without touching one dollar of transfer payments for Health and Social Services. The federal Liberal government chose to ignore that advice. The member opposite acknowledges that it has done some things to threaten medicare. I'm pleased to hear him finally acknowledge that. There is a real threat out there. I and the other nine provincial Health ministers agree. I hope this member will urge his caucus and his party to stand up and say to their federal Liberal counterparts that they have gotten it wrong and this is not the way Canadians expect them to achieve fiscal responsibility.
L. Fox: It's good to get back into the discussion. I hadn't anticipated starting a debate over Liberal policy and NDP policy. What I was trying to do was identify today's interpretation of universality versus what we meant by it some years back, when obviously the level of available services was not as great as they are today. I still maintain that we do not have
[ Page 14659 ]
equal accessibility today; we do not have universality. I'll give the minister a couple of issues that I think point that out very clearly. If they are acceptable in terms of the five goals of medicare, then I can accept that.
I recently had a constituent who needed an MRI scan. He was 453rd on the list at UBC hospital. Because he had money, he was able to go to Alberta and get it within about 20 days, and the B.C. Medical Plan paid for that MRI scan in Alberta. Because he was able to afford the airfare, he was able to all of a sudden get off of an eight-month waiting list and have it done within 20 days. I have another case in my constituency, where an individual needed a prostate operation. We all know there have been long waiting lists in the province of British Columbia for that. Because he was able to afford to fly down to the States, he was able to achieve the service a lot quicker than someone who couldn't.
If those kinds of incidents are still within the universality or equal accessibility that the minister talks about, then I have a better understanding, when he's talking on the five principles of health care, of what he's meaning. I think that's the confusion out there, and that's why I was trying to have this kind of dialogue without getting into the politics of the issue. I was trying to get at what an acceptable definition was for the five points of health care so that we can explain to British Columbians that, yes, that kind of flexibility is in the health care system. There will indeed be opportunities for those who can afford to fly to have quicker access to health care than those who cannot.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Until that last statement I did indeed think we were going to be talking about how we actually make the principle of accessibility into reality on the ground. But I'm beginning to despair that we're going to get away from some general rhetoric from the opposition here today, somehow asserting that the general principles of the Canada Health Act are not being adhered to in this province. I assure the members that they are.
Let's look at the two examples. First, access to magnetic resonance imaging: as the member opposite knows, I had the distinct pleasure just last month of opening the mobile MRI unit which is now serving the interior of the province. So geography is becoming a diminishing barrier to access for folks who live outside the lower mainland. It will still mean that folks from the Peace country will have to seek transportation to Prince George to access elective MRI procedures in that community. The principle of reasonable accessibility is one that we think needs to be employed to attack barriers to access caused by geography and barriers to access that are caused by excessive waiting times. That's why the Premier and I announced an $18.5 million initiative early in March to target some particular procedures where we believed the wait-times had clearly gotten longer than was desirable. As a result, this year there will be something like 15,000 MRI scans done in the province; last year there was something like 10,000 or 11,000. This year we will have hundreds of additional cardiac procedures and hundreds of additional knee and hip replacements performed to make sure that the time is kept reasonable and that access to health services is universal.
The one thing that I think we must all acknowledge, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, is that equitable or reasonable access doesn't mean that the same set of services can be available in every community in British Columbia. There will never be a heart transplant program operating in Stuart Lake hospital, hon. member; it will just not happen. There is not a sufficient population base to support the specialists and facilities that are needed to perform that. The chances are that for the next little while we will probably have one centre in the province that deals with such advanced procedures, and all of us will be looking at accessibility to that one service. So if we accept the principle that all services cannot be present everywhere all the time, then what we're really talking about is how we tailor the structure of health delivery to maximize access and also to maximize efficiency of delivery of services.
L. Fox: I don't believe I even indicated that I would ever expect to see open-heart surgery done in Stuart Lake hospital, but I would hope that we would see it done in British Columbia. In the two cases I put forward, both services were done outside the province, but paid for by our Medical Services Plan. I think the MRI scan is a good case, because at the time my constituent was told that the UBC MRI scan was only being utilized two and a half days a week. That may have changed by now, because it's a month ago since this happened. It seems ironic to me that here we are condemning Alberta for its slash-and-burn attitude, yet the individual was able to fly to Alberta -- because he could afford the airfare -- have the service done within 20 days, and our Medical Plan paid for it, when we couldn't expand the service within our own province and utilize the facilities that we had available.
[11:15]
I understand that we're not going to have MRIs available in every community. There has to be some realism around what we're going to deliver in terms of services in our respective communities. I'm the first one to understand that if I choose to live in Vanderhoof versus Prince George, I'm not going to have the same services available to me in Vanderhoof as you have in Prince George. That's a choice that we make.
But when we talk about universality in today's health initiative and we talk about accessibility, I think we shouldn't talk in such global terms. I think we should define what we mean when we talk in these terms. The minister earlier said, in discussions with the member from the Liberal Party, that the Reform Party stood up in the House and said that we were prepared to look at alternatives, such as user fees. He's correct. We are prepared to look at alternatives, but under the auspices of trying to provide universality in today's world, not in yesterday's world.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Everybody recognizes that government spending has to be reduced at all levels -- not just at the provincial level, not just at the federal level, but at the municipal level as well. The people are crying for some accountability. At the same time, they're not saying that you should just cut universally across the province. They're saying government has to revisit its priorities and start to look at how best it can deliver service in a more reasonable and cost-effective way. They're not asking that services be cut, in my view -- at least I haven't had anyone tell me that they want education or health services cut. What they want is accountability from government in how it spends their dollar. If we don't explore alternatives to the status quo, then how do we know whether or not we can meet the challenges of tomorrow, given the five principles of health care?
[ Page 14660 ]
I agree with the minister to a degree. I think the federal government was wrong to specifically target cuts without first looking at its own priorities and how best it might save Canadian taxpayers' dollars. By the same token, I don't think they cut enough out of their budget. I may differ on where they cut it, but I don't think they did enough cutting, and the bond-rating authorities have virtually stated that. We're going to have some very difficult challenges ahead of us in terms of meeting the five principles of medicare. We all should be exploring ways and means, first, to identify what it is we mean in today's world by universality, portability, accessibility and comprehensiveness, and then within that, the goals and objectives of how to achieve this.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have a comment on the transfer of a small number of folks to receive treatment in Alberta. I think the member opposite knows that for the Peace country and for the East Kootenays particularly, referrals to regional treatment centres in Alberta are really nothing new because of time in travelling. It has been like that for a number of years. Quite frankly, that's one of the advantages of having a portable system. We can, at times, employ services from another province. I'm not sure we'll always have that if Mr. Klein goes ahead with some of the more radical surgery he wishes to perform on the health system. Maybe we will find that portability won't exist between this province and Alberta, and it would be a shame if portability were lost.
I want to deal with two things: first, the member's comments on general government spending, government priorities and the general public view that essential services shouldn't be cut, and then perhaps a few words on the whole concept of user fees for access to health services.
This government has said clearly that we need to set spending priorities and get our fiscal house in order. We need to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit, which we have done. We need to have a debt reduction plan in place to make sure we're incurring capital expenses for needed facilities at a rate that the taxpayers can afford, and we're doing that. We have a demonstrated record of that....
An Hon. Member: You fudged the books.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite continues to heckle, but the reality is that our work is recognized by those who don't have a political hat to wear, but have only the responsibility of using the funds that their customers entrust to them for investment. The bond agencies of this country and other countries have given this government the highest marks for getting its fiscal house in order, for creating an environment where increased economic growth will occur and where the quality of public services is being maintained, unlike other provinces in this country. It is this member's federal counterparts that have resulted in Canada's bond rating being downgraded to the detriment of British Columbia at a time when this government's fiscal performance maintains us at the highest bond rating of any province in Canada. That is a reflection on our performance on managing the finances of the province.
I must say that when I hear the member for Prince George-Omineca speak of people not wanting their services cut and that he and his party share that view, I find this a bit of a dissimulation. I would be far happier if the Reform Party members got up and said: "We believe that your government spends too much. We need to lower government expenditure, and we are going to adopt the principles of Ralph Klein if we ever come to power in this province." That is the reality; that is the clear reality.
If you're going to embark on not just a trimming but a slashing of government to the extent that the Reform Party that calls itself a reform party and the Liberal Reform Party that has another tag are really going to embark on, it does mean diminished services. You don't do that without slashing away at the three biggest sources of expenditure in this province and in other provinces: health, education and social supports for the least fortunate among us. You simply can't do it any other way.
We have committed ourselves as a government to preserving funding for those services. The budget we're debating again illustrates that commitment. It is not a wildly excessive expenditure in the area of health. To do that you'd have to go back to the last budget of the previous Socred administration, where health budgets were increasing at 10 percent and 12 percent a year, far in excess of inflation and population growth. That happened in the late eighties and early nineties.
This budget proposes an increase of 4 percent for Health which I believe, given the financial times, is adequate. To present this as wildly generous simply misses the point. Population will grow around 2 percent this year, and inflation will do about the same. This is a budget that I feel will meet the health needs of British Columbians, but is surely not padded or generous.
The final thing I want to talk about just briefly is this whole concept of user fees. User fees are one of these fascinating topics. Those who advocate them say that somehow those who are sick should pay more and that the sicker you are, the more you should pay. They say that somehow we should substitute private money for revenues raised from the public purse and that somehow this will either increase the efficiency of the system or pump more dollars into the system and therefore make up for cuts.
Among those who look at this option, who have been reinvigorated by the federal government, are members of the Reform Party at the federal level, who advocate increasingly, as the provincial Reform Party does, that we should look at instituting user fees.
User fees are one of those ideas that.... I heard one person refer to them as a zombie -- it's a dead idea but it still walks around, and you have to keep thumping it back in its grave and drive a stake through its heart. I'm prepared to do that in this province, because it deserves the fate of being put in the grave and staked firmly into the soil. Every study I've seen of user fees suggests that they will accomplish neither of the objectives that their adherents say they will. First, will they raise sufficient revenues to really make a difference? Well, not if they're put at any rate that people can consider justifiable.
Most studies that I have seen -- and I think the member opposite may have seen them -- suggest that some members of the public might accept a modest user fee of $5 or so. The reality is that, given some 13 million visits to physicians a year, that would raise around $65 million on a budget of $1.4 billion for physician and other services. Does it seriously impact the offload of federal cuts of close to $800 million? I would suggest that we're not talking in the same league as far as magnitude. It simply doesn't do it. The only way you're going to get to that level of actually making a real impact on health is if
[ Page 14661 ]
you raise it to a level that approximates user-pay systems in other jurisdictions, where the individual assumes a large portion of the cost of health services.
The other claim often made for user fees is that it will somehow eliminate abuse of the system. I have yet to see a study that demonstrates that that will occur; on the contrary, I've seen several studies that suggest the overall volume of medical and doctor services and hospital services will remain approximately the same. The only difference is that those least able to pay will use less. That, I submit, is exactly the wrong message we want to send to the poor, the working poor and those who are struggling very hard to get by. We don't want them to have to choose between buying some Hamburger Helper for dinner and taking their child to the physician. That's not a choice British Columbians should have to make. It is the sort of choice that user fees would force on those least able to afford medical services in our province. So on this side of the committee and of the House, we do not think that user fees deserve the consideration that some think they should be given. It's a zombie of an idea, and it's time to lay it to rest permanently.
L. Fox: I expected that kind of harangue from the minister. It's obvious that these estimates are more of a political exercise than they are an exercise in trying to do what's in the best interests of British Columbia.
First of all, the minister made reference to a number of studies that he has seen around the issue of user fees. I haven't seen any studies that have been done recently. I've seen a number of studies that are dated, but times change; circumstances change. Most of the studies that I have seen were not done within the province of British Columbia, but within other jurisdictions. My question is: since this minister has taken over the portfolio, has he done any kind of exploratory work around the issue of user fees within the province of British Columbia? That's one question.
I guess the other thing that I wanted to take issue with was the fact that user fees would indeed disadvantage the poor. I do not see that as the case. Our medical services premiums.... People under certain incomes do not pay premiums, but they still have the service. There's no reason why you couldn't have a similar program within a user-pay program. I think that is a worthy objective, one that we'd want to see forwarded in any kind of consideration.
[11:30]
Secondly, if you're talking about means tests, we do that in MSP premiums: the more money we earn, the higher premiums we pay. I don't see that it's any new principle. Thirdly, I don't know how the minister could just quickly throw away $65 million. I know it's a small amount in terms of $6.4 billion, but $65 million may indeed provide substantial service throughout the province. It's not going to take the place of any federal cuts, and we wouldn't expect it to do that.
There are a couple of things that we are going to have to look at if we are going to continue to offer a broad-based, universal health care system in the province. We're going to have to look at either decreasing or delisting some services under medicare or somehow coming up with more dollars in order to meet the demand. So I think any movement and any exploratory exercise to look at how best we do this is going to have to be done.
I really believe there is going to be a lot of soul-searching in what we offer in medicare in the province for years and years and years to come. It's going to be an ongoing task and battle for governments of the day to deal with how best to deliver those services. That's not going to be something that we can answer next year, the year after or whenever. It's going to be an ongoing battle for each successive government in terms of how we meet the demands of medicare.
Some of that is going to be driven by the demographics of British Columbia, the aging factor. We are all well aware that in our last year of life, we're the highest cost to our medicare system. We're aware of those kinds of statistics. We're aware of how our aging factor is growing larger. Even in my constituency, where people used to retire, go south and become a statistic in Victoria or the Okanagan, this year 8 percent to 9 percent of my constituency will be over 65.
It's a brand-new challenge for us. It's a challenge not only in universal health care but as well in continuing care. So if we do not remove the politics from this and identify some objectiveness and togetherness in terms of identifying the challenges collectively and how we might meet those, I'm concerned that at the end of the day the individual who will be hurt will be the individual who needs the service.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments. I have a couple of comments here. First, I agree with the member that the challenge of providing comprehensive and accessible health services will be a challenge for whatever government occupies these benches and whatever minister sits in the Minister of Health's office. He has identified at least one of the pressures: we have an aging population. While it may be only 8 or 9 percent in his riding and in mine, 13 percent of the population in the province as a whole is over 65. This is expected to rise to close to 18 percent within a decade. In the following decade, it will top 20 percent. As we grow older, we clearly have different health needs.
Second, there are ongoing technological advances in health care and health services. Some of them generate cost savings, and some of them generate cost pressures. We have to adapt in terms of what services are delivered and how we can help people deal with illness and injury.
Finally, there's an ongoing evolution of decision-making over where health services are to be delivered. What's the best method? In an institution? In clinics? In people's homes? That's a challenge.
Having said that, let's go back to some of the major principles. I think this member has it wrong when he says that we have only two options -- pump more dollars in or delete services. If I understand it, that is the essence of his argument. If we don't have more dollars from the public purse, then we have to get them from the private purse. I would submit that this member should read the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which his previous party commissioned when it was in government. It said very clearly that "it ain't the money, stupid." We need to spend the money that we have more wisely.
L. Fox: I take that as an insult.
A. Warnke: Withdraw it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I intended no insult and will withdraw any imputation of that. I would say that Mr. Seaton charac-
[ Page 14662 ]
terized those who believe that more money is the answer as being unaware of the real problem. I think he did that repeatedly in his study. We must find ways of delivering health care more efficiently and spending tax dollars more wisely.
The member says I shouldn't kick away $65 million from user fees. I would surely welcome $65 million of additional revenue for health services. I can think of a variety of uses for it. I would say, though, that seeking that revenue from those who are sick and those who use the system is the wrong way to do it. The essence of a universal system is that we ask all British Columbians to pay their fair share of the cost of health services and that we deliver those services on a universal basis. User fees are not the correct approach to get those revenues. The member says that medical services premiums are an excellent model here. We have said very clearly that 15 percent of British Columbians should pay little or no medical services premiums. We've done more to reduce those premiums than any other government has done. I would like to see us move toward the target of no medical service premiums rather than increase those charges.
The final point I must comment on: the member asks whether studies on the effect of user fees have been done recently within British Columbia. I must say that I find that quite difficult to do, since user fees for hospitals and physicians are not allowed by the law of this province. It's a little hard to study something that doesn't exist; it's sort of like studying snowfall in Ghana.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:37 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]