1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Mineral Royalties Repeal Act (Bill 40). Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 1405

Water Improvement District Assistance Act (Bill 41). Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction

and first reading — 1406

Oral questions

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 1406

Non-medical people making medical decisions. Mr. Wallace — 1406

Result of meeting between government and VGH administration. Ms. Brown —

Press release on firearms control. Mr. Gibson — 1407

Glendale Hospital budget cut. Mr. Cocke — 1408

Replacement of bridge on Highway 27. Mrs. Wallace — 1408

Increased body shop rates. Mr. Barnes — 1408

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 3.

Mr. Gibson — 1408

Mr. Hewitt — 1411

Mr. Lloyd — 1412

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1413

Mr. Lauk — 1415

Mr. Davidson — 1418

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1422

Mr. Cocke — 1424

Mr. Levi — 1424

Mr. Barber — 1425

Mr. Nicolson — 1426

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1428

Mr. Nicolson — 1429

Mrs. Wallace — 1429

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1433

Mr. Wallace — 1433

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 1434

On vote 3.

Mr. King — 1434

Mr. Wallace — 1434

Mr. Gibson — 1436

Mr. Nicolson — 1436

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1437

Mr. Bawtree — 1437

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this

afternoon in the gallery are a group of students from the great

constituency of North Peace River. I would like to ask the House to

recognize a group from the Fort Nelson Secondary School in your

constituency, Mr. Speaker, with their teacher, Mr. Larson. The group

includes 16-year-old Eddie Streeper who was the 1976 British Columbia

champion sleigh-dog musher. His distinction was won racing at Fort St.

John. He was in competition with 25 other top dog mushers and teams

from across all of Canada and the United States of America. I would ask

you to welcome the class and give a special tribute to Eddie Streeper

and each of the students and the teacher, Mr. Larson.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to welcome a group of senior

citizens who are here from the constituency of South Okanagan. They are

the Mother Seeton Retirement Centre group. They are here with a group

of men and women with very much enthusiasm. They are going to be

visiting the Provincial Museum and Butchart Gardens, and they are in

the Legislature this afternoon. I'd ask you to welcome them.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are situated six very important people. First, Mr. Lorne

Fingarson, MBA, my campaign manager and close associate. He's a

vice-president of the Burnaby-Willingdon Social Credit Association.

Also there are Mr. and Mrs. W.L. Stephens. Mr. Stephens is a

long-time resident and engineer from Burnaby and New Westminster. He

also represents one of the original pioneer families on British

Columbia's west coast.

Mr. Stuart Fingarson, an eminent citizen, and his wife, Mrs. Evelyn

Fingarson, who is a past candidate for election to this Legislature.

Would you welcome, please these fine people?

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the

House today Chief Billy Roberts and Mrs. Roberts of the Campbell River

Indian band. Would the House join me in making them welcome?

Mr. Speaker, later on this afternoon there will also be a group of

students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay.

They will be accompanied by their teacher, Pete Sanford. I would like

the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce two people from my riding of Boundary-Similkameen, or I should say,

one from Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Alan MacDonald, the secretary-manager of

the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, and with him today, from Salmon

Arm, Marvin Persson, the president of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association.

Marvin is also the manager of the Federated Co-op in Salmon Arm. I would ask

the House to welcome them.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like the House to join with me today in welcoming the new

executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association. In the group of the

executive is the newly elected president, Mrs. Hamilton, and also the

past president, Mr. Berg.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, having lost

out, in all good honour, to the democratic process, I would like to

lend the support of welcome from the government members of the House to

the new trustees, president and the executive that are here today.

I might also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Hamilton

is a very accomplished woman, a lawyer, a mother and a homemaker as

well as a very interested citizen.

It was interesting to note in the paper today, the Province , that they announced broadly: "Woman Elected As Trustee President" and in the Sun

they announced: "Lawyer Elected As President." But the question with

lawyer elected president was: who is he? He is she, and we welcome them

all.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it's not very

often I have the privilege of introducing some students in this

assembly. However, a little later on this afternoon we'll have 35

students from the Alexander Park School in the community of Golden

along with their teachers, Mrs. Seward and Mrs. Ambrose, and I would

like the House to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the

gallery today, from Omineca, Mr. Jim Togy. Jim is an alderman on the

council of the village of Fort St. James, and I ask the House to

welcome him.

Introduction of bills.

MINERAL ROYALTIES REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 40, Mineral Royalties Repeal Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

[ Page 1406 ]

today.

WATER IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Nicolson, Bill 41, Water Improvement District

Assistance Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. SANFORD: My question is addressed to the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair). Yesterday, in response to my

question in the House on your department's monitoring of food prices,

you indicated that you had filed the most up-to-date information in

this House. That information was for the week of March 24, and this is

May 5. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us on what day the next

information will be available on monitoring of food prices.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take that question as notice. I should have an answer for the member tomorrow.

NON-MEDICAL PEOPLE

MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Health a question with regard to the strike at the

Vancouver General Hospital and the fact that Dr. Key has stated that

the hospital cannot guarantee their medical and surgical care as safe

under existing circumstances. And in view of the fact that the

government has set up machinery, through the Labour Relations Board as

monitors, has consideration been given to the fact that the government

is contradicting legislation in having non-medical people practising

medicine, or, at least, reaching decisions about medical standards?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker.

There are no non-medical people reaching decisions about medical

standards, and those instructions are only carried out on the request

of the hospital to the Labour Relations Board. You are, I imagine,

quoting from a newspaper report when you quote Dr. Key, but Dr. Key has

assured me that medical standards will remain at a safe level;

otherwise he would not allow the changes to take place.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question. I have obtained statements and

opinions from a variety of people in the hospital field, and just to

correct the minister's comment, I am certainly not just relying on

newspaper comments. There has been concern expressed in the pediatric

department that young babies now have to be cared for in an adult-care

area, that contaminated laundry is not being adequately handled

promptly and efficiently and this obviously introduces the serious

possibility of cross-infection. I wonder if the minister could tell us

what mechanism has been set up so he can be informed by medical

personnel at the earliest possible moment as to when that point of

danger is reached.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member: I appreciate

the concern, and certainly it's ours as well. From my point of view,

the only advice that I'm taking is from the medical people and the

executive at Vancouver General Hospital, not from any other source

whatsoever, Mr. Member. If I am informed that an unsafe condition

exists that can't be tolerated, then some action will have to be taken

at that time. But my advice is coming from the hospital and not from

anyone else.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplemental, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Is

the minister aware that when I dialed the hospital switchboard today, a

recorded response stated the following: "Due to a strike situation at

the hospital, telephone service is restricted to emergency calls only;

if your call is an emergency, please keep dialing until your call is

answered"? Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: since this could obviously

lead to a person in an emergency situation — for example, with a child

who has swallowed poison or whatever — having to dial, re-dial and

re-dial, this, in effect, negates the essence of dealing with an

emergency. If the minister is not aware of this, would he please tell

the House that he will deal with this problem immediately?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Member. I was not aware of it, but I will look into it immediately.

RESULT OF MEETING BETWEEN

GOVERNMENT AND VGH ADMINISTRATION

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): A supplemental question to

the Minister of Health: the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)

informed us yesterday that you and the Minister of Labour would be

meeting with the administration of the hospital to come to some kind of

an agreement about helping the administration meet and settle this

strike as soon as possible. Are you going to make a statement to this

House telling us what the results of that meeting

[ Page 1407 ]

were?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a supplemental question. It's a question on a different matter altogether, but we will accept it as that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, sure, I'll make a statement to the

House when I feel that I should make a statement to the House, Mr.

Speaker. I have not met with the administration of the Vancouver

General Hospital yet. I am meeting with the chairman of the board today

at 3 o'clock, and depending on the results of that meeting, then I'll

decide whether I'll make a statement to the House.

PRESS RELEASE ON FIREARMS CONTROL

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry: in view of

the minister's demand on March 7 of this year for the federal

government to immediately enact gun-control legislation and forget

about further procrastination in the form of studies and observations,

does the minister sanction the recent press release by Dr. Hatter of

her department, on press release letterhead bearing the minister's

name, to protest the firearms control

section of the bill to amend the

Criminal Code?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano for the question. The comment was made in the

context of a television show, I believe. A question was asked and I

said I believed at that time that I agreed with the federal government

enacting legislation immediately, or as quickly as possible, because a

lot of procrastination had taken place regarding gun registration.

At this time you are asking about Dr. Hatter's press release, I

believe. Yes, it did go through my office. I read the release and

approved of it, and I think it is a fairly accurate statement of that

branch of the department. It is not a personal statement from myself;

that is why it is over the name of Dr. Hatter of the Fish and Wildlife

branch.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, just so I can

understand: was Dr. Hatter expressing the official stand of the

government in his release?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I cannot say that Dr. Hatter's statement

is an official government stand. It was the department's view of the

proposed gun legislation. It was given to me for approval and I did

approve it going out. I do not say that it's a reflection of the

government's policy on that subject.

MR. GIBSON: On a final supplementary: are we to understand that press releases no longer represent the official stand of the government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think that the nature of

Dr. Hatter's release was one which I could approve in terms of further

investigation of that particular bill and further comment on the bill

as far as British Columbia's stance is concerned, and that is the

essence in which I approved that press release.

I hope you will understand, when you consider the nature of that

legislation, that this government at this point in time has not had

time to form that policy. We definitely have very strong points of view

which we would like to, with time, put before the people of British

Columbia. But it was in the essence of approving that we felt the

federal legislation should have more input from our people of British

Columbia that the press release was approved.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Does the Provincial

Secretary believe that a civil servant should issue statements through

your office on what is obviously a policy on a political matter?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that if you read the release you

would understand that it was to elicit debate within the province of

British Columbia and to say to the federal government...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that this government....

MR. MACDONALD: That's a political argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I have

given to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano covers the

subject. I don't believe in stifling the expression of civil servants

in our service.

The Fish and Wildlife branch has a very good record, and I'm not

stifling that expression. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, through you, in

answer to the former Attorney-General, that the reason it was given to

me for approval was that if it did express public policy I would not

have let it go out, because our government hasn't made that particular

point of view known as yet, and when it does it will certainly have a

government policy on that subject.

[ Page 1408 ]

GLENDALE HOSPITAL BUDGET CUT

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Human Resources. I wonder if the

minister would confirm a report that Glendale Hospital for the retarded

had a budget cut of 25 per cent.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice and I'll provide an answer tomorrow.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is taking it back

to his department to look into the matter, I wonder if he'd also

confirm that admissions have been cut to the point where there will be

no further admissions until such time as the patient population is down

from, roughly, 300 to 100.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will table the answer in the House.

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ON HIGHWAY 27

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the

Minister of Highways and Public Works, and it is in connection with

Highway 27 in the northern area of this province, near Vanderhoof,

where there is a bridge that is a one-way wooden structure. My question

would be: is this bridge to be replaced, and if so, when?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): To the member: the answer to your question is no, there is no provision to replace that bridge at the present time.

INCREASED BODY SHOP RATES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address a question to the Minister of Education. The reports in the

press indicate that the autobody shops will be requiring additional

per-hour increases, which I'm wondering if the minister took into

account when he raised the insurance rates some 700 per cent for

insured automobile operators in the province of British Columbia. And

can they be assured that there will be no increase in those rates

during this fiscal year, despite any agreements made between the

government and the autobody shops?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the

rates for ICBC were calculated to be on a break-even basis so the

corporation would lose no more money this year. That was the policy of

the corporation, and it differed to the policy of the former government.

With respect to body shops, the policy of ICBC, as with towing and

all other services rendered to the corporation, is to get the lowest

prices possible in order to bring the lowest real prices to the

motorists of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's concern

to have ICBC break even, but he didn't answer my question. I'm

wondering if the insured individuals will be required to pay additional

money in this fiscal year — in addition to the 700 per cent they've

already been required to pay.

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not,

and if the good-driving record of the people of British Columbia

continues throughout this year, we may even be able to bring real

reductions next year.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of

B.C. on minors' contracts, and also the report of Messrs. Bain, Black

and Wyler, "An Ombudsman for British Columbia."

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728 — continued.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm

just going to make a few general remarks at this time. I was listening

carefully to what the minister said in his opening statement last

night, which was nothing. I think it's very sad, you know, that....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Did you follow it?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I followed it, and I think he told us all he

knew too, Mr. Attorney-General. But I think it's a shame that there's

no opening overview on these kinds of things.

Just a short digression: I've been looking at this practice in some

of the other provinces, in Ontario and Alberta, and at the opening of

each estimate we're privileged to have at least two or three pages of

Hansard debate with the minister telling us something about the plans

of his department. I would have hoped, since we were told on December

11 that this government had a policy, that there would have been

[ Page 1409 ]

an agricultural policy. All I can say is that I didn't see one last night.

Now looking at the basics, Mr. Chairman, the very basics, I think we

should all start out by saying how lucky we are here in British

Columbia. We don't produce all our own food by a long shot, only a

fraction of it, but we're awfully well fed. When you look at the plight

of other nations of the world — most of the world is living on

something like 400 pounds of grain equivalent for a year. We are

privileged in British Columbia and in Canada to have over 2,000 pounds

grain equivalent per year, much of which we take in well-marbled steaks

and that kind of thing. We are very, very fortunate in our country. But

in countries that have to get by on 400 pounds of grain a year per

person, there's no slack at all. If there's any higher prices in things

like energy inputs, if there are significant failures in world crops,

if there's a lower supply of any kind, it just doesn't mean more

expensive food; it means starvation to a lot of people because the

income isn't there.

Many members may have noted in the newspaper the other morning a

headline saying: "World Chaos Predicted" — talking about climatic

changes around the world over the next 40 years. There's an

article

from the Wall Street Journal of March 25 with this headline:

"By 2000, Prevention of Starvation May be Chief Global Concern." So

we're lucky in that context, Mr. Chairman, and because of that, I very

much commend the government for the $5 million in the estimates for

world food considerations. This isn't just a thing that we should do;

it's a thing that's a moral imperative.

I would ask the minister if he could tell us, in a little more

detail than appears in the estimates, how these moneys are to be

distributed and what kind of plan he has, not just for this year but

for future years, to reflect British Columbia's responsibilities in

these areas. We're just one province of a nation in this world that

extends foreign aid on its own account, but because we're one of the

richer provinces, I think it's right and proper we should do our part.

I'd be grateful if the minister could tell us in greater detail what

his plans are in this regard.

The next basic, when you're talking about agriculture, which is

food, is the question of waste. I want to make a little quote here from

Viewpoint , which is the magazine or the pamphlet of the British

Columbia Federation of Agriculture, because they had something very

wise to say the other day in the March 29 number.

First of all they quote from Trade and Commerce , which is a monthly report on western industry. Here is the quote they make:

"Conservatively, 25 per cent of the food purchased in

this country for human consumption will end up in garbage bags or be

dumped in pet dishes as an extra ration for this country's overfed cat

and dog population."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against dogs?

MR. GIBSON: I'm not against dogs at all, Mr. Minister; I'm

against food waste to the extent it is wasted. I'm going to give you

another figure later on. It goes on with this kind of talk:

"In thousands of Canadian kitchens, the amount of food

prepared at mealtime for a family of three or four would adequately

fill the bellies of six or seven people. This propensity to overfeed by

indulgent homemakers leaves unconsumed on plates and serving dishes

millions of tons of food annually that is thrown out. This criminal

waste of food in a world where half the population starves or suffers

from malnutrition is repeated in the country's commercial dining rooms

and restaurants."

Then they mention what the federal Minister of Agriculture had to

say a little bit ago. He quoted from a more conservative source

gleaned, Mr. Chairman, from municipal garbage disposal figures. From

that source the average wasted food per person per year amounts to 300

lbs. It means more than 18 per cent of the food we buy gets thrown out

— not fed to pets, Mr. Minister, but thrown out into the garbage can.

Viewpoint says: "If a business firm or municipality or a government's

department or a marketing board, for that matter, were to have a

wastage rate of even half that amount there would be scandal notices

and heads would roll."

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that every parent and every

school should mention those kinds of figures to their children and

think of them themselves. The Department of Health should take a few

ads to pound this kind of fact into the heads of our citizenry, because

there is no question but that we are a very well-fed population and we

should, at a minimum, discourage waste.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about agriculture

production in this province and the reasons why our production must be

somewhat related to economics but also somewhat supported by the

general taxpayer, if necessary. The main reason, of course, is the

reason of security. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was

talking last night about the security of our food supply. It is not

something that need bother us this year or next, but looking down the

road it is something we have to be concerned about.

The next reason is our need for a balanced economy in this province,

because the farm community is a very important addition to our economy

— the third resource industry, I think the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was calling it last night.

[ Page 1410 ]

Thirdly, there is the question of social factors. It has long been

believed, and it is a view that I subscribe to, that the farm community

is an important social and, indeed, political factor in our society.

They bring a set of very common-sense, down-to-earth values to our

society that we have to hang on to. Above all, we have to maintain the

agricultural sector because we can't turn the clock back if we ever

lose it.

I would like to ask the minister a kind of a broad question: Mr.

Minister, how do British Columbia's costs compare sector by sector in

the agricultural field? Where do we have an economic advantage? Where

do we have an economic advantage that we are not, perhaps, exploiting

enough? Where, in the various fields that we are producing, do we have

an economic disadvantage but nevertheless for internal British Columbia

reasons of the kind I have just cited we should carry them on? That's

just a general kind of question.

Getting a bit more into the economic side, I will quote again the

hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, who said it last night: the prices of

food, when you compare them to our personal disposable income, have

been going down, not up. I think that very, very few consumers begrudge

the farmer a proper income commensurate with his labour. There are two

goals, I would think, of our financial policies in the economic field.

One is a decent standard of living and income protection and stability

on the farm, and the other is the goal of efficiency. Those two aren't

always compatible in the short run but in the long run we should be

able to find ways to always make them compatible over generations. That

is the basic long-term challenge facing the minister.

You heard a former minister, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford),

say last night that during his time in office he had been so bedevilled

with immediate problems that he had difficulty turning his attention to

the longer range. That is always a difficulty, but I hope this minister

will be able to get onto that.

There are three basic routes in going after this goal of income

stability with efficiency. The first is not to regulate the farm

economy at all. Mr. Chairman, that simply will not work. It won't work

because the farmer is a relatively powerless force in the marketplace.

The farmer is powerless against the forces that confront him — a world

market situation, continually escalating costs of supplies, inputs into

the farm process and relatively little market power of his own. That's

in an unregulated situation.

So there are two other kinds of things that have been developed.

First of all there is a system to protect specific groups of farmers,

and those are generally called marketing schemes.

Then the second concept that came along was protection not of groups

so much as individuals, and that was the income assurance scheme.

British Columbia, I think, was a leader in moving towards that, and

I've been very glad to see that the new government is endorsing that

concept — probably with differences in detail in the various income

assurance packages, but endorsing the concept.

I think that's right, because while in economic theory the idea of

protecting a group of, let's say, milk producers may be the best for

efficiency, in practice, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't work out that way. At

least it doesn't work out that way when the group has its own monopoly

powers and where the control of those monopoly powers rests solely

within the group that's being protected, because there, rather than

leading to the kind of efficiency you would expect when the lowest-cost

producer got most of the market, the way the quota systems are set up

it becomes a case of making sure that the highest-cost producer has

enough to live on, and therefore the lowest-cost producer does a great

deal better than that.

That leads to a situation, and I'll come back again to the milk

field, where there is a capitalization of, and trading in, monopoly

quotas, monopoly quotas which are issued by the state to individuals,

giving the right to sell a certain amount of product.

Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that about a year and a half ago the

marginal price for an extra 100 pounds of milk quota was in the

neighbourhood of $2,500 to $3,000, and today it's more in the

neighbourhood of $7,500. That's the marginal price, and I'm told that

the average quota price is around $4,500 for a 100-lb. can. That, to

me, is really an unconscionable feature of any marketing scheme, where

monopoly powers which are conferred by the Crown for the protection of

a specific group are capitalized at very high amounts and traded. What

was given freely as a gift of the province in order to protect a

specific group becomes a capital asset to be traded.

This has been a very bad part of this industry for a long time. I

know the government recognizes it, and the problem is how to get out of

it. I'd like the minister to give us some comments on that, because he

knows, I know, and everybody in this House knows that if a part of your

capital investment is this kind of quota, which has no real value

except for a monopoly right conferred by the province, then the

consumer is paying part of the cost of that capitalization with every

quart of milk he buys.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same with the taxi licences.

MR. GIBSON: It's the same with the taxi licences — I agree with you, Mr. Member, but we'll handle that under the taxi vote.

So that's the problem I see there with marketing boards. They have many merits, Mr. Chairman; I

[ Page 1411 ]

would suggest we cannot do away with marketing boards in the

preservation of an orderly industry, orderly conditions of supply and

so on, but, Mr. Chairman, this government, I would suggest, has to find

ways to either far better control the price-fixing powers in the public

interest and in the consumer interest, or else find ways of doing away

with the price-fixing powers and leave the more desirable functions of

marketing boards in place.

The other general economic approach I spoke of, the means of

protecting individuals as opposed to groups, is one that, in my view,

has great potential. We've only seen it working for two or three years

now in British Columbia, but it has great potential for protecting the

individual, their income and stability, and since each individual is

protected, the whole group is protected, but at the same time

permitting and encouraging change and efficiency down the line.

Those are just some general concepts I want to place before the

minister now. I'd be grateful if he has any comment on them, and I'll

be coming back with more detail on subsequent votes.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): The grapes of wrath!

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I have two items I would like to

bring to the attention of the minister. One deals with the grapes of

wrath, I guess, but first of all the item I would like to bring to the

attention of the minister is in regard to blue-tongue disease. I expect

somebody might make a comment that maybe they've been drinking B.C.

wine, but I don't want to put any humour into this discussion, Mr.

Chairman, because it is a serious matter for the people of

Boundary-Similkameen, the Okanagan and, as far as I'm concerned,

possibly the province of British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, there is an

article in the May 5 Province :

"Blue-tongue Slaughter Hits 600 Head of Cattle." It is under, I

believe, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, which is a federal Act

that deals with one of the contagious diseases of blue-tongue virus.

This has been identified and has been acknowledged to be in the

Similkameen-Boundary country, I believe in herds from almost to

Princeton through to the Sunshine Valley, near Grand Forks and,

I believe, on up the Okanagan. It has now been identified and 600 head

have been slaughtered.

The concern, Mr. Chairman, by the cattlemen's association is that

what is happening is that these herds are being tested in the

Similkameen area and the Okanagan area, the test comes back identified

as positive and the cow and the calf are slaughtered.

Now the federal government is paying $475 for that cow and the calf,

but there are two problems. One is that right now those cattle are

being turned out to open range, and most of the financial input the

rancher has made is past. He is now turning them out to open range,

that calf will fatten up and will be able to be sold on the open market

in the fall and the cattleman will receive a fair return on his

investment. That's one of the problems: the calf is taken before it has

time to grow.

The other problem is that if the brood cow is slaughtered, it

decreases the breeding in the herd the cattleman has. In some cases it

creates a problem because it's very difficult to replace brood cows in

a herd that you've taken years and years to build up.

The cowmen, in essence, recognize the disease, they recognize that

it could be a problem, they recognize the concern of the federal

government, but what they are saying is: "Let us determine just how

widespread this problem is before the officials go out and slaughter

cattle within the Similkameen-Boundary area."

If they slaughter those cattle, and then find it is widespread all

across Canada, then cattle will have been slaughtered without any

reason, because, for the members of this assembly who aren't aware of

it, blue-tongue disease does not affect the meat of the cattle — in the

United States they live with blue-tongue disease — but it does affect

the import or the export market. Some countries will not allow cattle

in from any country that has blue-tongue disease in that country — will

not allow the cattle or the semen to be imported because of the record

of blue tongue.

Mr. Chairman, I'm really saying to the Minister of

Agriculture...asking his office to communicate with Ottawa to point out

the concern of the cattlemen in British Columbia, and ask Ottawa if

they would please determine by sampling to what extent this disease has

spread in B.C., in Alberta, in Canada, because in the marketplace,

where there are sales of cattle in the Okanagan and Kamloops, many of

those cattle are sold to Alberta ranchers. They even travel as far back

as Ontario. If the disease has spread, it seems senseless to slaughter

brood cows in the Okanagan or in the Similkameen when, really, they

haven't got much of a chance of containing the disease in that area.

One of the other problems is that the disease is also in sheep and

deer. The deer know no boundaries; they wander throughout the area. The

disease is mainly transmitted by what is known as a no-see-em, or black

fly, which can bite one cow or deer which has the disease then pass it

on to another one. We are, in my riding bordering on the United States,

and since there is no concern or no control of blue-tongue disease in

the United States, cattle and deer can wander across the border, and

therefore we haven't got much hope of controlling it from that area.

[ Page 1412 ]

So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the minister use his good offices

to point out to the federal government the concern the cattlemen have

on their herds, the concern we have as to how farspread this disease

is, and that we would like a sampling done of all the cattle herds in

the area, throughout B.C. and Alberta, to ensure that we are not

dealing with something that, on a moment's notice, somebody in Ottawa

has said that we must curtail it, yet it's too farspread to curtail.

One of the other items I would like to bring up, and again I bring

it up, is the famous comment about the wine industry and the

grape-growing industry, and this is under the Minister of Agriculture's

estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I was not dealing with the quality of our local wines;

I was not dealing with the charisma of foreign wines the other day when

I rose in my place. I am, in effect, dealing with two B.C. industries

which I believe have a long way to go in promoting their products, and

which I believe will do a great deal for the people of British

Columbia, their employees and the public. I find it damned hard to

understand why we aren't prepared to support B.C. industries.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who I respect a great deal,

made the comment that we will ensure that the wine industry and the

grape-growing industry will survive. I say that's not good enough. I

say that we should make every effort possible to allow those two

industries to prosper. I can't understand the effect on the consumer,

when you relate B.C. businesses versus the introduction of foreign

labels under $3 a bottle.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to support the efforts of

the B.C. grape growers, the efforts of the B.C. wineries, in relating

this message to the Attorney-General because it is under his offices

that the liquor distribution branch falls. I would hope that the

Attorney-General would give further consideration before allowing more

foreign wine labels under $3 to appear on our liquor store shelves.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak

on vote 3. A matter of very grave concern to my constituents was

brought up in the House yesterday by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Shelford) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) concerning the

situation with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board.

I have a short wire from my constituents which I would like to show

to the House to show the interest and concern that does exist up there.

It's a short wire of some 36 feet long and 6,058 names. I think it

really shows the interest and concern that is held up there. I say to

you, Mr. Chairman, that I think this really illustrates the genuine

concern among all the constituents of the ridings of the north for this

very serious problem that has existed for some five years, ever since

the egg board was structured.

I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) touched briefly on

the setup of the board. It wasn't quite as clear cut as she indicated; it

was a setup that was taken advantage of to a certain extent by moving the quota

available to everyone ahead six months and then establishing a quota system.

It certainly appears to the members of the board from the north, the producers

from the north, that the situation was taken advantage of by some of the producers

in the Fraser Valley. They built up their flocks far beyond the quota they required

at the time the egg board was structured.

This famous, or infamous, chicken-and-egg war has gone on pretty

well ever since the inception of the board. The members up north feel

that more quotas should be able to be shifted up north on the original

concept that the quota wasn't going to have a value. However, like a

lot of other concepts on an idealistic situation like marketing boards,

this soon disappeared and dollar value was established on the quota.

This resulted in a misunderstanding and controversy that has existed

right down to this day. I'm sure the House and the people of the

province are quite aware of the legal and political battle that has

been going on ever since.

This problem was handed to our laps, as the MLAs for the area,

shortly after the election, and we certainly have to agree with the

Minister of Agriculture, the member for South Peace, that until the

back levies situation has been paid up — it's a legal levy instigated

by a properly constituted board of the province; the courts have

decided in their wisdom that it is a levy that was due and payable —

there hasn't been very much anyone could expect in a way of government

intervention.

However, as the last decision of the court has come down, there

isn't too much doubt among the producers from the north that there is

going to be any way of beating this in the courts.

I think, Mr. Chairman, at this time that the northern producers have

pretty well resigned themselves to sitting down with the board. We have

arranged a meeting with the board for the northern producers on May 13

to give their side of the story and to hope that the communication

within the board can be re-established again. They've asked for certain

conditions if they pay the back levies, but as everyone realizes, when

a court decision comes down there aren't any conditions attached to it.

It really is a payment that has to be made.

But, still, it doesn't say that the board, as a democratic board,

can't give the northern producers some assurance that the movement of

quota will be on a more realistic basis, that greater production will

be allowed in the north. We are quite hopeful that at this meeting

there will be a proper dialogue

[ Page 1413 ]

established.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, through you, if the Minister of

Agriculture can give an answer to some of these people on this wire, to

these northern producers — if he can't give them some kind of an

indication that a proper economic, independent study will be made of

the egg-marketing situation, particularly in regard to moving quota

from one area to another, in regard to producing more at a local level

to ensure the consumers and the people of the province that they can

get fresh eggs at their local market.

A lot of argument from the northern producers has been that they

don't really see why they should have to subsidize the egg-breaking

because they don't even supply all the local market now. Their argument

is: "Why should we be subsidizing the breakage of eggs in other areas

that are overproducing?" I think, to a certain extent, they have a very

logical argument there.

In any event, the strife that has existed since the inception of the

board has put a lot of pressure on marketing boards of all kinds. Are

they really all that good for the producers? But further than that, are

they all that good for the consumers? A lot of consumers are starting

to get into the act now and wondering if all their rights are

protected, too. So I think a proper independent economic survey,

particularly in the egg-marketing situation, is long overdue. Mr.

Chairman, on behalf of these people who sent the wire and on behalf of

the northern producers, I would certainly like some assurance that

there is going to be a proper study made of this entire situation.

Thank you.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

in answer to some of the questions that have been asked, with regard to

the remarks by the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), I'd

like to say that the department has been cooperating with the federal

government. I think we must all recognize that the settlement as to the

value has to be determined between the federal government and the

industry itself. We have communicated with Ottawa and we have offered

our support in any area that we can assist. I think Ottawa is probably

reassessing the situation at the present time as to whether they should

be continuing to do tests at the auction marts or whether they should

be testing on the outside area. However, again, we will certainly work

with them and give them any cooperation that we can give them.

With regard to the wine industry — and I don't wish to get into a

lengthy discussion of this — as I have said before, I look at the wine

industry...

AN HON. MEMBER: Your cup runneth over.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...not only as an agricultural industry but

I look on it as a thriving industry, a part of the great economy of the

province of British Columbia. I look forward to when that industry

improves and improves and improves its products, to the day when we can

be selling our wine produce aboard and competing — abroad, I mean — and

competing...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Why not aboard, too?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...with those well-established industries in

other countries.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, as I said last night, those wine industries in those other countries are not all lily white and pure.

MR. WALLACE: Some of them are red.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We had a case here not too long ago where

certain of the higher-grade wines were having additives. We've read

stories about where certain vineyards have produced enough wine that

would normally take eight years of grapes to produce. So those

industries are not all lily-white pure.

But I'll have to admit that among some of the more travelled persons

sitting in this House it has a great charisma to have a nice bottle of

French wine and pay $16 a bottle for it. But I want to tell you that

I've sampled both good French wines and B.C. wines, and I want to tell

you...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You can't tell the difference.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that B.C. has got some real.... Well,

that depends on what bottle it's after. But I want to tell you that

British Columbia has some wines that it can be proud of and that will

compete with many of those imported wines.

I think that our whole endeavour should be to improve the vineyards,

which they're doing. The Department of Agriculture is working with the

vineyards to upgrade their quality of grapes. But I want to tell you

that you don't improve a vineyard overnight. It takes a long time to

grow good grapes and we are working towards that end. And I think that

the wine industry in British Columbia has made great progress and I am

proud of it. Also I am proud of the fact that probably, of all of the

agricultural products that we produce, the add-on value is the greatest

with the grapes. I think the figure is something like 800 to 1.

[ Page 1414 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Then not only do we get that add-on value,

we make money when we sell it, too. So I don't want to see our grape

industry fold up. I don't want the Attorney-General's department to be

pressured today by those other countries and those other wineries that

have tremendous surpluses. I know the pressure might be on our

Attorney-General. I hope he won't succumb to that pressure because,

whether you to go Ontario or whether you go to Portugal or whether you

go to Spain or Australia, there is a surplus today of wine. Why?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why? This has been caused not because — I

don't think — people are drinking less wine but because there have been

good yields from the vineyards. Maybe some of that surplus is caused by

some of the wineries. I wouldn't want to accuse any of the wineries of

those foreign countries, but maybe they've been getting more wine from

the grapes than they should normally have got from those same grapes.

There is a surplus and I know that the pressure will be on the

Attorney-General to sell those wines here in British Columbia. I know

that maybe in some of those cheap bottles — those bottles that sell at

a lower price, I should say — maybe some of the higher-priced wine

might be in them. Maybe some of those countries that normally keep

their best wine for drinking in their own countries are going to put

some of their better wine...and sell it here. Now they call that

dumping. I am not going to accuse them of dumping but I am going to say

this could be the case.

I think that here in British Columbia we must withstand those

tremendous pressures that might be on us to accept some of those wines.

When there's a shortage, they'll draw back. They'll draw back. It's

just like the rest of the agricultural industry. Oh, they want to give

us lots and they're going to give us a good deal when there's a surplus!

But I want to tell you, as soon as there's a shortage, and we don't

have our own wine industry, then the price of those foreign wines will

go up. I don't care whether you're talking about wine or lettuce or

tomatoes — you name it. It's the same, because it's an agricultural

industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you make wine out of lettuce?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, you don't make wine out of lettuce. We

talk about the future needs of British Columbia and the need to

preserve our agricultural land. That's all

I'm going to say about the wine industry, but I hope that the

Attorney-General won't succumb to that great pressure that might be on

him from all of those foreign wineries to list some of those cheap

wines to compete with our own British Columbia product.

I want to talk for just a short moment, and I just want to answer

the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) with regard to the eggs and the

chickens and the Egg Marketing Board. I want to tell you that I don't

want anybody to upset this very delicate situation that exists in

British Columbia today, because I look forward to the time in British

Columbia in about three weeks or a month when the chicken-and-egg war

will be signed, and peacefully signed.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Under Bill 22?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. There's been tremendous pressure and

it's just about to be settled — peacefully. This situation has been

with us for a number of years — great pressure on the Minister of

Agriculture to move in and ask people to break the law, but the answer

is no. So it's going to be settled — I hope peacefully.

MR. LAUK: If not peacefully, how?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said in this House before, and I'll

say it again today, laws are made to be amended, and when they don't

work for the good of the people we have to take a look at them. I say

we'll take a look, and we'll take a second look, because if the

situation is good for British Columbia we want to be able to come out

and say the situation is good, and in spite of all the criticism,

marketing boards are good and they are protecting British Columbians,

and they are protecting the consumer, and they are protecting the

producer.

If, on the other hand, they are not protecting the consumer and they

are not helping the producer and they're not protecting this great

industry of British Columbia, then we'll take a look at it — we'll take

a fresh look.

MR. LAUK: Not another royal commission?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not talking about a royal commission — I'm just saying we'll take a look!

MR. MACDONALD: Why don't you go into politics?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to take a look,

[ Page 1415 ]

but first of all the law must be obeyed. I can't ask anybody to

break the law. There has been a lot of pressure, but I look forward to

that day when the situation will be settled, not with interference from

the Minister of Agriculture, not with interference from the executive

council, not with interference from the government, but in the great

democratic way, among the appellant and — what do you call it? I'm not

a lawyer, but you understand what I mean.

MR. LAUK: The plaintiff and the defendant.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The plaintiff and the defendant, yes — in the democratic way. That's the way it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the legal way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's the democratic way. Now I think that I've answered all the questions that were asked.

MR. MACDONALD: You have to tell us what you said.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the tremendous

agricultural potential of all those window boxes in the west end of my

riding. (Laughter.)

We're discussing the Minister of Agriculture's non-salary, Mr.

Chairman, because as I look at the estimates there's no salary listed

for the Minister of Agriculture.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Good.

MR. LAUK: Having regard for the performance of the Minister

of Agriculture in the last four months I can see why. I think that any

amount of money would be overpayment for the service that that minister

has given to the farmers of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ho hum.

MR. LAUK: I think that his steadfast refusals to meet with

farmers' organizations in the beginning, and the lack of answers when

he did meet, demonstrate an abysmal lack of understanding of the plight

of the farmer in this province.

I'd particularly like to speak about this particular minister's

attitude over the last several years to the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ho hum.

MR. LAUK: Yes, the minister can go "ho hum." He's

embarrassed, and he should be embarrassed, after he stood in this House

hour after hour, day after day, opposing the Land Commission Act, which

is a far-reaching Act, one of the first in the world among the

democratic countries to preserve farmland from the ravages and

pressures of industrial and residential growth.

I'll tell you what happened. Since that time the Land Commission Act

has been followed and emulated in other democratic jurisdictions

throughout the world. What was the need for the Land Commission Act?

Was it just to curtail land speculators for the sake of curtailing land

speculators. No. It was a recognition by the government and, we

thought, eventually by the opposition of the day, that farmland was

absolutely necessary for our survival. Now that seems like a simple

proposition, a proposition that should be easily understood. But it's

not a proposition, Mr. Chairman, that's obviously understood by that

government and by that minister.

He spoke for days, filibustering — or Phillipsbustering — the Land Commission Act, the Bill 42 of that day.

MR. WALLACE: Where's the cabinet, Don?

MR. LAUK: It was a shame, Mr. Minister. It seems to me that

that is the last minister that I would choose to be the Minister of

Agriculture unless the Premier is of the view that the Land Commission

Act should be totally and utterly emasculated.

There was the promise — a black cloud of a promise — in the last

election campaign that the Land Commission Act provisions would be

administered at the municipal level. This would be a total emasculation

of the bill because it would not work that way. We had that situation

before the Land Commission Act when municipalities were, I must

suggest, more susceptible to municipal pressure and pressure from

developers, many of whom joined city councils — democratically elected,

of course — but many of whom had interests in the development of land

that could be used and should be used as farmland.

It was for that reason that this government took the bold and

creative measure by legislating the Land Commission Act. Now the Land

Commission Act was a just and fair and democratic Act. It had appeal

provisions: it had provisions for hearings at the municipal level, at

the regional district level and at the Land Commission level, with an

appeal to a committee of cabinet. All these appeals were available to

landholders and developers throughout the province so that there wasn't

a total cut-off from planned and reasonable growth in farming

communities.

During the time of the debate of that Act it was clear that the

greatest pressure for the use of farmland for industrial-residential

purposes was occurring in the Fraser Valley and in the Okanagan

[ Page 1416 ]

area. Those two areas were our greatest concern.

The pressure that was being put on governments at the municipal and

provincial level to bring that land into industrial or residential use

was monumental, Mr. Chairman. The developers of this land became

panic-stricken, as did some members in an irrational moment, and they

attacked the bill with all of their strength. The bill has since, as I

say, Mr. Chairman, proved to be an excellent one, but what has happened

to it since? What about that promise during the election campaign by

the now Premier of this province?

Is the Land Commission totally emasculated? Are we to ignore the

demands upon farmland that are increasing exponentially every day for

food production? Are we to ignore those warnings? I think that very

seldom on this side of the House would you hear one of us quote the CIA

as an authority.

MR. KERSTER: Old Rubber Tongue.

MR. LAUK: But the recent report by the CIA, who did research

into the possible climatic changes of this country, could bring total

economic disaster and social destruction to Canada. Far be it from me

to say the sky is falling, based on none other than a CIA report. I'm

not asking you to rush and light your hair on fire, Mr. Minister, but

what I am asking you to do is take the reasonable approach. You, as the

Minister of Agriculture, should take the strongest possible stand with

your colleagues with respect to the provisions of the Land Commission

Act.

I think that you are the best equipped, being recently described as

"the power behind the throne," to take charge of this most important

issue. We know, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister pulls the strings

in this government. We know that he has the political judgment, the

intelligence and the intestinal fortitude to carry through with this

important task, putting political expedience aside. Never mind the

pressures of the developers — you will become known as the finest

Minister of Agriculture and the finest cabinet minister of all time if

you stand up against your colleagues against these encroachments onto

the provisions and the protections of the Land Commission Act,

Already we can see people not associated with opposition parties

attacking the change in attitude of the Land Commission. How did that

change take place? I leave it to your own imagination. How did that

change take place?

What about in Kelowna? The Kelowna Daily Courier — and I'm sorry

that the Premier's not in his seat today — dated Saturday, April

3, 1976, said:

"Vern Hopkins, president of the Okanagan Naturalists'

Club, says the Okanagan's agricultural land base is being eroded in spite

of the Land Commission Act. Mr. Hopkins, who is also a forest ranger, said he

was speaking as a private citizen and apart from his official position. He feels

that snowjobs are lopping off areas of arable land for subdivision purpose.

On marginal land, he said, he could understand farmers and orchardists wanting

to capitalize on the artificially high prices being paid in the Okanagan particularly,

although the problem existed throughout the province itself.

"'But in a few years — a decade or so — I have a

feeling we will need all land upon which it is possible to grow crops

of some kind, even alfalfa. A case in point is the 408 acres just off

the North Glenmore road. The Central Okanagan Regional District

recently approved a submission by 20 owners of that land to have it

removed from the Agricultural Land Act.'"

Mr. Chairman, I think you and I and many British Columbians have

travelled to Kelowna, have travelled through the Okanagan and seen the

heartless strip development that has taken place. We've seen the

magnificent fruit orchards of the Okanagan being eaten up by residence

and industry. We've seen that over the past 20 years, and it was for

that reason that the NDP administration brought in the protections that

we did. Already, since December 11, we see this being eroded. We see

the Land Commission being disregarded and we see that the governments

at the municipal and provincial level are giving in to the development

pressure. They're giving in.

There's always great pressure on governments. We must be ever

vigilant, not because we're opposed to people making a profit. We're

not opposed even to people maximizing their profit within reasonable

bounds. This party's not opposed to wealth. It's opposed to poverty.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we're opposed to starvation. We're opposed to being

anything less than self-sufficient in the production of foodstuffs in

this province.

I say to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, that he must be

ever vigilant and avoid the politically expedient decisions that can be

made from time to time and apply the law fairly in the purpose for

which it should be applied. Friends at court must not have any special

advantage in this regard. Friends and associates in one's political

party should not have any advantage under the Land Commission Act.

When we became government and when I was appointed to the cabinet,

Mr. Chairman, there was great pressure in the lower mainland and the

greater Vancouver area for the outspread of industrial growth to create

jobs and to create badly needed housing. There was great pressure

particularly from the municipality of Delta — not the government, but

private landowners there. They came by the dozens to me as Minister of

Economic Development and they said: "We need this land to be put into

industrial use and into housing projects. Can you influence the

[ Page 1417 ]

Land Commission? Can you influence your colleagues to release some

of this land?" I explained to them the tremendous importance of the

preservation of farmland within this province to the future generations

of our province, to our children and their children. I explained to

them that it was regrettable indeed that they felt that their farmland

could be used for speculative purposes, but that now we must take a

higher road. We must protect those future generations and we must say

to you that that land must be cultivated and used for the production of

food.

I did say to them that when the development corporation was

established, we would make every effort to assemble some land in Delta

— most of which is excellent arable land — to relieve the pressure of

industrial growth and to give them a higher tax base. This was

understood, although they went away saying that they were less than

satisfied. They felt that at least something was being done from the

point of view of industrial expansion. This was done. An assembly was

put together. Part of the land is still an agricultural, or what we

would call an industrial, reserve and a small portion of the land, 160

acres or so, is being developed as an industrial park, an exemplary one

indeed. At least we hope so.

It was around the time before the British Columbia Development

Corporation was established that a man by the name of Spetifore

approached me with a project, a project for a housing development on

some of his land in the municipality of Delta. It was an elaborate

project. It required several acres of No. 1 prime agricultural land. It

was a good project from the sense that it was aesthetically not

unattractive. I explained to Mr. Spetifore that the position of our

government was that we must, at all costs, preserve farmland within the

Delta municipality, that we did not want to see unbridled growth

continue. I explained to him that for industrial purposes there would

be an assembly of land put together by the new, as yet to be

established, Development Corporation of British Columbia. Now I

appreciate that he was not satisfied, but I also appreciate that at

least he took the answer and went home.

Now the new government....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How much pressure did you get from Harrison?

MR. LAUK: Don't know the man.

Mr. Chairman, as soon as this government was formed, we find a new

project. Let me go back a year or so. After this housing project was

put forward and there was an indication that it would be refused, Mr.

Spetifore had some other land, land which has recently been discussed

in the newspapers, for a potato factory. But he approached me first as

a member of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation —

at least some of his people did — with the potato-processing concept.

We looked at it carefully. At that time the consortium wished to

borrow a great deal of money — many millions of dollars — from the

development corporation to proceed with this project. We did several

studies through the development corporation. We discovered first of all

that the need for the processing plant may exist...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who else pressured you?

MR. LAUK: ...but at the same time, we could see that this

project should not be financed with so many millions of dollars from

the development corporation and that there would be some problems with

pollution from the effluent of such a potato-processing factory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get pressure from anybody else?

MR. LAUK: As many people know, certain food preservatives and

other chemicals are used in this process. It became untenable for us,

without further study, to proceed with the project. The project was

withdrawn from consideration by the development corporation. But never

at any time, Mr. Chairman, did we say that the land could not be made

available under certain conditions of pollution control and other

financing arrangements — never at any time — so that we could keep

industrial growth within the particularly designed area of Delta and

avoid the unnecessary use of farmland elsewhere in the municipality.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many did you get into?

MR. LAUK: Now we find.... I notice I've woken up the Minister

of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman. If he's awake now, he'll be alive in a

few minutes. This project could, and still can, go on that already

zoned industrial property owned by the development corporation. They

talk about a sewage problem. The effluent from the sewers of the plant

to go on the property that they claim it should go on will create an

algae problem in the bay, in seawater, and create other

pollution-control hazards the like of which we haven't seen so far.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Not so.

MR. LAUK: It is also close to a residential district and will become an eyesore, but maybe that's up to the municipality involved.

The land upon which this potato factory is to go is

[ Page 1418 ]

60 per cent class 2 and 40 per cent class 3 agricultural land —

valuable agricultural land that should be used for the production of

food.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, we wonder why the Land

Commission has approved this application — a very serious application

indeed. I say the friends of court of this government should not get

special advantages. I say that the minister should investigate

immediately the fact that Mr. Spetifore contributed a substantial

amount of money to the Social Credit candidate — now the MLA for Delta

(Mr. Davidson) — a substantial amount of money to his campaign funds.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Unwarranted attack! Withdraw!

MR. LAUK: It's been confirmed that Mr. Spetifore....

MR. KERSTER: Where's your proof?

MR. LAUK: It's been confirmed that Mr. Spetifore has

contributed a substantial amount of money to the candidacy of the now

member for Delta. It's been confirmed.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The member will not deny it. The member is in the House; he can stand up and deny it if he wishes.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What are you inferring?

MR. LAUK: What I am saying is this: that justice and fair play must be seen to be done in this province. It must not be behind doors.

MR. KAHL: Bring back the files.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You must stand up and show that the law is being

applied fairly. Let me point out to you that it is well known that Mr.

Spetifore is a Social Credit supporter. He has been appointed to the

B.C. Marketing Board by the minister. He has contributed funds to the

Social Credit campaign, and now he is getting his potato factory in

Delta on prime farmland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LAUK: I say that's a shame! I say that at least the

minister should stand in his place and explain why Mr. Spetifore is

receiving so much attention from this government. I thought that Mr.

Spetifore would be satisfied with my detailed explanation of how we

should preserve farmland. I thought he accepted my regrets and my

sympathies that he could not make all of this fantastic amount of money

by developing his own land in Delta that was good farmland. But no, he

was not satisfied. He worked for the Social Credit Party, which is his

democratic right. He contributed a substantial amount of money to the

candidate of the day for the Social Credit Party, and that's his

democratic right. But is it his democratic right to receive the release

of his land from the Land Commission Act — prime agricultural land —

when we have already established an industrial assembly by the BCDC, a

Crown corporation under the control and now under the chairmanship of

the Minister of Agriculture?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that some questions should be answered

in this regard. Don't get the backbencher from Delta up to explain your

actions, Mr. Minister. You get up and explain yourself. Don't let him

get up and be the Minister of Defence. You stand in your place and tell

us about Mr. Spetifore. It may be perfectly appropriate, but all of the

evidence that I have seen today, Mr. Chairman, has indicated to me that

the potatoes are a little overripe in this case.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to stand here and

deny the fact that Mr. Spetifore supported me in my campaign or

supported me in my candidacy for the Social Credit Party. The term

"substantial donation" was used, and that is something I feel is

possibly best described by the member in terms of dollars. If he has

some information as to the amount of money that was used, that would be

fine and dandy, but I can only say, in speaking on the particular

ministerial bill before the House, that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They are all there; make the charges.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there

was some, I feel, hint of impropriety laid by the member opposite,

would it not be possible for me to have a short period of explanation

in regard to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on vote 3, which is a minister's salary vote, and....

MR. DAVIDSON: That is so and this, of course, relates to the fact that before the ALR was a proposal

[ Page 1419 ]

for a specific potato-processing unit, and this is directly related to Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I know the member will relate all of his remarks to the vote, vote 3.

MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly.

MR. LAUK: What do you consider a substantial amount?

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just at the outset say that

for myself, I never did and never have seen any amounts of money that

were contributed to my campaign other than....

Interjection.

MR. DAVIDSON: That, Mr. Member, is a fact. That's an absolute fact!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: Anyhow, going back to the minister's estimates,

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Spetifore has been an exemplary member of the

community for many years in the Delta area. At one time, as chairman of

the potato cooperative in Delta, he made application on behalf of that

co-op for an approximately $10 million development to the Minister of

Agriculture at that time, and subsequently it was understood that a $10

million guaranteed loan would be forthcoming. However, it seemed

that the government somehow or other ran out of money, and all they

would actually come through with was one-third, up to a maximum of $3

million, and the project was subsequently scuttled.

There has been some suggestion that Mr. Spetifore should move his

plant from his own property, property that he owns, to that of the

industrial development site which he would have to pay for. In

addition, it would be approximately two years before that property

would be serviceable.

The proposal that was put before the British Columbia Land

Commission.... By the way, Mr. Chairman, it's a Land Commission which

still in its entirety is made up of members appointed by the previous

administration, not this administration. On April 2, 1976, the British

Columbia Land Commission, their Land Commission, gave approval in

principle to the project as outlined. And I should say that that was

dependent upon some areas of their requirement being met. Those areas

were met, and on April 7, 1976, the British Columbia Land Commission —

again, their members, not our members — gave final approval to the

proposal to establish a frozen-food-processing plant at the location in

question.

The landscaping was to comply with the aesthetics of the

surrounding area and was very carefully outlined and discussed with

council. Subsequently, a public hearing was held and as a result of

this public hearing certain facts were brought out. It is interesting

to note, Mr. Chairman, that during that public hearing....

MR. LAUK: Who was there?

MR. DAVIDSON: I'll get to the individuals who were involved.

MR. LAUK: Who was Les Peterson acting for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite has asked in

what capacity Mr. Leslie Peterson was acting at that particular meeting

— Q.C. He was, in fact, acting for the Spetifore family and their

development, which was held before the particular Delta council.

MR. LAUK: Who was Mr. Hyndman acting for?

MR. DAVIDSON: Wait!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Delta has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDSON: Now, Mr. Chairman, during that particular

hearing it was interesting to note that there was not one environmental

move or one environmental opposition point made — and the reason was

very simple.

At that particular meeting, and present and acting on behalf of the

Spetifore family, was a Mr. Lash, the vice-chairman of the

environmental division of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,

and technical author of approximately 50 publications on pollution

control, and, by the way, a recognized world expert on pollution

control.

Also present was Mr. Flauden, of Flauden Inc. of Washington, who was

there to also answer questions on environmental pollution control.

Very great detail was taken to spell out the actual procedures that

would be used in this particular plant. Of interest, too, is the fact

that this particular project will cost approximately $4 million, which

is being put up not with a government grant, not with a government

subsidy, but with private-enterprise money. It's Mr. Spetifore's gamble

that he's taking that this is going to be useful.

During the comments of the hon. member across

[ Page 1420 ]

the way during his.... He said something about that the need may

exist for a potato factory — may exist. Mr. Chairman, at this present

time Mr. Spetifore has in his barn over 4,000 tons of potatoes that

have not been able to be marketed in this province because there is no

market for that product. If ever a need were great, then certainly this

is the case. We talk about Bill 42. Land which lacks viability in

virtually every respect has in many cases been placed in the

Agricultural Land Reserve — areas that would be ideal for almost

anything other than agriculture. The particular section, the Spetifore

section within the area of the old Imperial farm, has been subjected to

approximately 16 different expropriations, whether it be for highways,

hydro rights-of-way, whether it be rail lines, whether it be for power

lines — 16 different expropriations. By the time they are finished,

anyone who can turn around and say that while that soil may be class 2

or class 3, the viability access is simply not there. There is no way

that that can be classified as an agriculturally desirable area,

because of the number of obstructions that are around just for the

simple case of trying to farm it with implements.

MR. LAUK: That's not what the Land Commission says.

MR. DAVIDSON: Now because of the proximity of this plant to

one of the most desirable residential areas in Canada, certain measures

over and above those provided in other plants have been taken to

prevent pollution and to protect the environment in this particular

case. The environmental impact expenditures are estimated to

approximate three-quarters of a million dollars in this particular

project.

There will be no noxious odours nor air contaminates being

discharged from the plant's processing operation. In addition, this

plant will have enough waste to feed between 6,000 and 8,000 head of

cattle per year. The plant will also employ directly between 70 and 80

people, not including administrative staff. The Spetifore payroll will

be in excess of $1 million per year. The sewer will, however, have to

be extended to accommodate the project, and that extension — estimated

to cost approximately $1 million — will be paid for by the Spetifores.

The construction of the plant should be completed by August 15 of this

year, and the plant should be in full operation not later than

September 15 of this year.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot say to the farmers of this

country that we're going to put a freeze on their land so they can only

use it for agricultural purposes, and then prevent the agricultural

people from processing their products. You cannot blame a farmer for

wanting to sell what he produces.

We give a lot of lip service to the importance of the farmer in our

society; without them we'd all go hungry, yet we do little as a

society, it seems, to help them.

There is a very serious problem in the potato-growing industry in

this community today, a problem that will be extremely critical if this

plant is not built this year. However, today they have not been able to

sell their crops, and at the moment there are, as I mentioned, some

4,000 tons of potatoes in this particular storage area, and this

represents only one farm. Other potato growers face the same problem at

the present time: the only way these potatoes can be salvaged is to

have a plant of the kind we've been talking about during this

presentation.

In 1976 it is estimated that British Columbians will use more than

35,000 pounds of frozen french fries. When you couple this trend

towards processed food products with British Columbia's annual growth

rate, the project gives a ray of light and hope to the farmers not only

in the Delta municipality, but in the Fraser Valley. The best way to

keep the farmer on the land is to let him make a dollar.

It's interesting to note as well, Mr. Chairman, that this particular

processing plant, once it goes into effect, will put approximately

3,000 additional acres into production, and, in terms of

dollars-and-cents poundage, that's approximately 30,000 tons of

potatoes additional each year and represents almost $2.5 million to the

agricultural community in the Delta and adjacent areas alone.

The member across asked several questions during.... He asked who was at this particular study, who was at the public hearing.

There was Mr. Les Peterson, QC, who acted for the Spetifore family.

If any sort of connotation is being drawn by that, I would only say,

Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Peterson is a most competent legal mind and

certainly because one individual represents a group, that certainly

should draw no lines as to their political affiliation. I'm sure that

the member opposite would not turn down a client if he were other than

his own political philosophy.

You know, going back to vote 3, the potato industry, several points

were made again that Tilbury Island would have been an ideal site for

this project. Unfortunately, the Tilbury Island was not owned by Mr.

Spetifore, as I mentioned, but it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to go

back into the history of Tilbury Island. How did the previous

administration acquire the land at Tilbury Island?

It is very interesting to note that the land that was purchased for

Tilbury Island development was purchased, I believe, by an

out-of-province agency who were acting on behalf of the former

administration. They purchased that land at agricultural prices and

then zoned the land "industrial." Where was the concern for the

[ Page 1421 ]

agricultural community in that instance, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many acres? How many acres?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I inquire of the minister, ought this to be debated under Economic Development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDSON: Approximately 728.

In addition to the individuals mentioned beforehand at this public

hearing and those who spoke in favour of this proposal, Mr. Chairman,

in addition to the Envirotech people and the former hon. Mr. Les

Peterson, was Mr. Victor Reynolds of the Delta Farmers Institute; Mr.

Jim Harris; Mr. John Friesen, president of the Delta Chamber of

Commerce; Larry Jorgenson, B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board; Dan

Wallave of the Tsawwassen Business Association; Mike Guichon, long-time

farmer in the area; Leslie Abramson, a businesswoman in the Tsawwassen

district; Alan Barker, B.C. Coast Vegetable cooperative. The list goes

on, Mr. Chairman: Ken Bates, Milt Kelly, Jeannine Acheson, Noel

Ruddick, Matt Kennedy, Gary Morris, Bill Zylman, B.C. Certified Seed

Growers, Bill Robertson, Bill McGeachie, Ed Gilmore.

MR. LAUK: And Peter Hyndman.

MR. DAVIDSON: The name of Peter Hyndman has been mentioned,

and I would like to clarify for the hon. member that Mr. Hyndman was

not speaking in favour of this proposal, nor was he speaking against

this proposal. In fact, Mr. Hyndman, who you rightfully identify as the

president of this party, was speaking on behalf of an individual whose

property was not in question at this public hearing. All he wanted to

do, Mr. Chairman, was relate this to the future agricultural needs of

that particular area in saying that, if the Spetifore proposal was

going to be considered in this light, his client should possibly have

similar consideration in the future.

You know, of interest also, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Spetifore has

made previous applications on Bill 42 to have land removed and, of

course, as a result and, possibly rightly so, his application was

turned down. The reason was that this was zoned "agricultural," and,

as Bill 42 states, could not be used for "residential," as was the

application by the municipality in his behalf.

So what has happened is that Mr. Spetifore has come before the Land

Commission and said: "Now that I have land that is zoned 'agricultural

' I want to use it for agricultural purposes." And the members opposite

say: "No, don't use it for agricultural purposes."

Mr. Chairman, if we turn around and say to a farmer, "save your land

for farming," and, as soon as he wants to do something agriculturally

related, turn around and say again, "don't do anything with your land,"

where does it leave the farmer? Is there any reason to doubt that

farmers in this province are very confused with the

interpretations of

Bill 42?

I was delighted to hear that the Environment minister, the minister

responsible for the Land Commission, had indicated in the speech that I

attended that economic viability would be considered in the future.

This is a very important aspect of Bill 42, because without economic

viability there is no farming in this province.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister agree that it's economically viable? We haven't heard from him yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: You know, Mr. Chairman, if I were to stand

before this House and propose a private member's bill that would say

something like this: "I want to freeze every piece of land in British

Columbia over two acres and leave it in its existing form; I want to

put into the hands of five individuals the ultimate decision for the

use of all land in this province and, as a result of these moves, the

pressure on available land would rise four times in value over the next

year and a half to two years; and I further state that the government

can buy, sell, lease or any other way acquire individual land," I

daresay that the members opposite would be standing in their places and

shouting that that was a terribly unfair piece of legislation with far

too much control. That is exactly what happened in Bill 42 when it was

before the House.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — who I see is not in the

House, unfortunately — yesterday indicated that this member should be

rather remiss to defend the previous position in opposition to Bill 42

by the Social Credit government. I would only say that I would oppose

that kind of legislation at any time.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it very clearly

understood that I support the preservation of farmland in this

province. But let us consider farmland in other than just one sweeping

mass of zoning. In the case of Delta, why was 70 per cent of Delta

zoned agricultural? It couldn't possibly have been that the former

Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams) was discharged by

that municipality and that this was a sweeping vendettta on his part. I

wouldn't suggest that for one moment.

[ Page 1422 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. DAVIDSON: But there had to be a reason why land that is

no more fit for the growing of vegetables because of a high salt

factor...these things were never taken into consideration. That is why

Bill 42, and rightly so was changed, and without the opposition that

went on in this House that bill would not have been changed. Those

members who spoke in defence of freedoms in this province and

particularly those who spoke for 34 hours should be complimented on

their approach because it gave people a time to see what was happening

in this province.

MR. LAUK: How much did Spetifore give you for your campaign?

MR. DAVIDSON: I honestly don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you get?

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three other very

brief points I would like to make regarding agriculture before I take

my place. There is no question that cheap imports that are flooding

this market are having an adverse effect on the agricultural

marketplace of British Columbia, and I refer specifically to Taiwan.

While there is no international trade agreement with Taiwan, we still

have not been able to get the federal government to take action on

these products. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will be

effective in bringing this inequitous position before the next General

Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.

I was also very pleased to see that the minister had committed

himself and his department to an aggressive marketing programme for

British Columbia products and produce. I compliment him on this and I

look forward to successful initiations in that project.

I would like to make one other comment before closing, Mr. Chairman,

and that is that I would hope that there could be some way of pointing

out to the people of British Columbia the harm that is being done to

the British Columbia system of marketing by those who would choose to

shop in the United States rather than at home. I am sure that if these

people understood the overall effect it's having — and not just now,

Mr. Chairman — but the long-term effect that this could have in our own

food-producing areas.... An education programme should be commenced

that would make people aware of the damage that they are causing this

community by shopping for cheaper goods in the United States.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and try and answer a few of the questions that have been raised.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, this afternoon. First of all, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to Bill 42 and the Land

Commission Act, and I will be brief.

I also want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I did not know that Mr.

Spetifore had even applied to the Land Commission. I plead ignorance. I

suppose I should have known that, but in all sincerity and honesty I

didn't know. I didn't know and, of course, I don't follow every

application that goes before the Land Commission. But it's ignorance on

my part and I suppose I should have know.

However, I have listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), talk

about Bill 42, and how, when I was in opposition, I opposed this bill.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I stood on a principle. They

seem to forget, and I'll have to tell them time and time again, and I

have to keep reminding them, that when they brought in that original

bill, the sole purpose of that was to take over not only farmland, but

to take over all land in British Columbia. It was a completely

dictatorial bill, and it usurped the rights of all individuals who held

land in British Columbia, usurped all the rights.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Where are the secret police?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, that original bill did

not give anybody any recourse to the courts, and that dictatorial

government, had we not stopped them in their tracks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...they would have gone on and they would

have taken over all land in British Columbia. They would have had no

respect for any of the rights.... This would have been just the first

act on the part of that government, and thank heavens, Mr. Chairman, we

did stop them in their tracks, and the farmers came and they went

outside the Legislature here, on the front lawn, and they put that

government in their place. Then they brought in an amendment. Now they

like to keep referring to the present Act, the present Bill 42, Mr.

Chairman...

MR. MACDONALD: That's the one you spoke against.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...which doesn't even relate to the original bill, and they like to keep

[ Page 1423 ]

on.... I tell you, they wish, Mr. Chairman, they just wish that they

were half as effective back in opposition as we were. This bothers

them, because I've listened to this whole debate. I've listened ever

since this House...and they can't seem to grasp onto an issue; they're

grasping for straws.

But we realize, Mr. Chairman, that they're leaderless; that poor

little group over there are leaderless. They knocked at the door for 20

years. Eventually they got in, Mr. Chairman, and then they were thrown

out because they couldn't govern. I can understand they trying to grasp

onto little bits of straws, trying to get something they can hang on

to. I feel sorry for them, Mr. Chairman, because I remember I was faced

with the problem as Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

The vegetable growers in the Delta area came to me...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You wouldn't see them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and I met with them. I met with them,

Mr. Chairman, and we are moving to solve their problem. I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, that problem has been around for a long time, and

when you read the report of the great agricultural committee, which

travelled the width and breadth and the depth and the north and south

and east and west of this province in 1973...read the report of that

committee, Mr. Chairman, and what did it say? What did it recommend

that that government do about the agricultural industry and the

vegetable industry in the Delta area? It recommended solutions.

MR. LEA: What did they do?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That government that wants to protect

farmland, what did they do? Talk, talk, talk, and no action. What did

they do about that problem, Mr. Chairman? They did absolutely nothing,

and I want to tell you this government is moving solidly and steadily

and surely to solve that problem, because this government will bring

action. We won't just talk about preserving farmlands in glowing terms

for the press.

I'll tell you, this government will be judged, Mr. Chairman, by the

results of the actions it takes — and we will take action. We just

won't talk about preserving farmland, we just won't talk about helping

the farmer, Mr. Chairman. We will help the farmer. We will preserve

agriculture and we will get the economy rolling again so that the

agricultural industry will be able to sell its products at home, here

in this great province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention one other little item.

Just one little item. Here was that great strong government, with the

crushing majority they had. They talk about preserving farmland, and

they talk, the second member for Vancouver Centre just a moment ago

talked about taking — how many acres is it? Is it 10, 12 for this

potato plant? It was 10, 12, 20 acres out of agricultural production to

put an agricultural industry on it. They're talking about 10 or 12

acres.

What did that government do? They were going to plump an oil

refinery right in the middle of the best agricultural land in all of

Canada. They were going to put an oil refinery in there.

Oh, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, their arguments seem so shallow and

so weak and so fictitious. You know, we're going to be judged by our

deeds. I want to tell you that we will move positively, and we will

preserve farmland. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LEA: But for what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're not going to do like they did and be

fictitious. We're not going to put in that agricultural reserve rock

piles and gravel piles. I want to tell you something else, Mr.

Chairman. You know, they're so fictitious; they really are, Mr.

Chairman. Because literally thousands of acres of farmland were taken

out of the agricultural land reserve while they were government.

Thousands and thousands of acres were taken out, and here they were

going to plump that polluting refinery right in the heart of the best

farmland in all of Canada — in the lower Fraser Valley. There's the

minister over there, there's the then minister, who was going to plump

that oil refinery right in the centre of the Fraser Valley and pollute.

There would be no agriculture there at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Where, where, where?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I want to tell you...and what did they do about bringing farmland back in the Nicomekl-Serpentine area?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they knew about it. Did they build any

dikes? Did they do any studies? They could have put thousands of acres

of the best farmland in Canada back, but they talked and they talked

and they did absolutely nothing.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I really feel sorry for that group over there. I really feel sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's obvious.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't mention some of the others — land that they wanted to take out for

[ Page 1424 ]

ICBC and Tilbury Island. Tilbury Island — they were so anxious to

buy that, Mr. Chairman, and get it out of the agricultural land reserve

before anybody noticed it, that they had some fictitious company buy it

and borrow the money from B.C. Hydro before BCDC was even formed. They

were in such a mad rush to get that out of agricultural production. But

as I say, Mr. Chairman, I can do nothing but really stand here and feel

sorry for that group over there.

I didn't intend to get carried away this afternoon, but I do feel

that those poor people over there.... You know, Mr. Chairman, we will

relieve the pressure on the lower Fraser Valley for housing because the

housing policies of our greatest Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

will provide housing on land that is already available, land that is

already alienated out of the ALR. We will see that that land is

serviced and we will see that houses are built on that land and we will

take the pressure off of the lower mainland. That way, there will not

be that continuing pressure, because there will be houses for everybody

on land that is already available.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, just a word

or two to the Minister of Agriculture. Most of the things that I wanted

to say I said last night. I charged that minister with ignoring the

fact that we're so totally dependent upon a state in the United States

— California — which has a depleting water supply and an erosion of

agricultural land similar to what we enjoyed in British Columbia under

the old, Socred government and what we contemplate now under the new

coalition.

The third thing, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that energy sources are

depleting as well and that there would be further difficulty in getting

food to Canada, particularly when California requires all they can

produce themselves, and so what did that minister do? He jumped up

today and he charged the old NDP government for doing what we did

properly.

If that minister, and member at that time, had really had any

interest, he would have watched what happened after the bill was

brought in and after his dissertation by the hour. The whole question

of what land should be left in the ALR and what land should be out was

the question that was taken to each of the regional districts, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture, but you had no interest. You're not really

interested in what happens to land in this province. There was a lot of

land taken out of the ALR, and it was taken out because it was the will

of the regional districts. They were supposed to have done a job. Some

of them did an excellent job on seeing to it that only those lands that

were considered to be good agricultural lands stayed in and those lands

that were described in this House as rock piles were taken out.

Mr. Chairman, that's the democratic process in good working order.

Now we see an entirely different approach. We see members around this

House, on the other side, who were supported during the last election

by people who have a vested interest in getting some of that land out —

some of the good land out — and that's what's terrifying us. That's

what's terrifying us. The member for Delta, getting up and making that

speech, with respect....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, an excellent speech.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Delta epitomizes the problem this

province has had and faces now, in that the Member for Delta comes from

the richest land in the province, a land capable of growing six crops

in some areas — six crops — and, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Don't give me that Tilbury Island stuff. The

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) indicated the pressures that

were on, and you had to put an industrial complex somewhere.

So, Mr. Chairman, a few acres in Tilbury Island to offset the

thousands of acres that were being lost to blacktop, the thousands of

acres that were being lost to houses. Developers don't want to build

houses up the sides of hills. Developers want to build houses down in

valley bottoms and thereby rob us. Laugh, Mr. Member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Kahl), but the fact of the matter is that that's exactly the way it's

been in this province and that's the way it'll be with this

high-handed, mighty, laughing situation that you've developed around

agricultural land.

MR. KAHL: Who owned all the farmland that the NDP bought?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, isn't it interesting the way they

react to this situation? The Minister of Agriculture should bow his

head and solemnly swear to do something more than he's done in the past

around the whole question of protecting farmland for B.C.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): There he is — he's in

position. You know, I thought he was going to go into a speech similar

to the one he made over here when he was speaking against the Land

Commission.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister a brief that was

submitted to the B.C. cabinet on December 18, 1972, when you were over

here. It was by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and they said at

the bottom: "It is well known and widely

[ Page 1425 ]

acknowledged that incomes received by farm families have not kept

pace with the rest of society. You may be aware that 82 per cent of the

farmers in British Columbia receive less than federal unemployment

insurance benefits, while a substantial number of farm families make do

on income below current welfare rates." That was in December, Mr.

Minister, of 1972. After 20 years of your party's governing, that's

what the farmers said then.

In December, 1975, Charles Bernhardt, who was the president of the

B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, was speaking at the National Apple

Conference in Ottawa on December 17 and 18. This is what he said:

"Enactment of the B.C. Land Commission Act in the spring of 1973 and

the passage of the Farm Income Assurance Act and other companion

legislation in the fall of 1973 will be recorded as historic milestones

in securing the future of agriculture and farmers in British Columbia."

That's what Mr. Bernhardt said.

He first reviews the circumstances leading up to these events —

disappearance of the best farmland, industrial growth, and other

factors. Farmers, through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, had been

expressing their concern for preservation of farmland for 10 years to

the government of the day — the Socred government. They repeatedly

pointed to the impossible competition which development represented in

the use of land. We have that minister and his colleagues, including

the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who got up last night and

in a moment of pique made a speech.... I'm sure that he doesn't

remember what he said, but he....

MR. CHABOT: I'll repeat it.

MR. LEVI: No, you haven't got the floor. He doesn't

remember. He presented himself as the hero or the defender of the

preservation of farmland. They are the preservers of farmland. This is

what the farmers said in 1972 and what they said in 1975: Enactment of

the B.C. Land Commission Act and the Farm Income Assurance Act will be

recorded as historic milestones in securing the future of agriculture

and farmers in British Columbia. We haven't heard yet from that

minister whether those farmers can feel secure in the future.

Yesterday, in the debate on the Attorney-General's estimates, he

made reference to the grape growers, and he made a point of saying that

they don't need farm income assurance. They work hard and they have

initiative. I concluded from that, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister

was saying was that all the people who needed farm income assurance

have somehow not the same kind of initiative and drive that the grape

growers have.

Again, I want to repeat what the farmers said in 1972: "It is well

known and widely acknowledged that incomes received by farm families

have not kept pace with the rest of society. You may be aware that 82

per cent of the farmers make less money than they do on unemployment

insurance." That's why they needed farm income assurance, Mr. Minister.

You cannot compare the efforts of the grape growers, who are recent

comers here, to the people that have been here for years trying to

develop a farm industry with absolutely no assistance from a government

that was indifferent to their future — completely indifferent. Then he

has the gall to stand up in the House along with his colleagues and say

that they're going to do great things for the farmers. I think it's an

incredible thing to inflict upon the farmers of this province that

minister, the 2 per cent minister — just an incredible infliction that

they're going to have to bear, hopefully not too long.

The difficulty that we have in this debate, Mr. Chairman, in respect

to this minister, is that we can't even reduce his salary. We would

love to do that, but we can find no mechanism that we can reduce his

salary by. That's very unfortunate. He can smile because that's the

only way. If we could change the rules, we'd move the motion right away

that your salary be reduced not by $1, but to $1. Then I think we

would have a further debate on the merits of that. Of course, the

minister would sit there smiling and know full well that he's got his

other portfolio that will carry him through anyway, so he'll be okay.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): The Minister of Agriculture said

that he intended to be judged by his actions, and I can assure him he

will. He will be judged and found wanting. I grew up in Victoria and

spent my first 13 summers on a farm. I have some familiarity with it,

have some familiarity with the concerns of farmers in this province.

The land farmers and the real estate farmers who appeared on the

front steps of the Legislature are not going to prove to be the same

group of farmers who next appear on the steps of the Legislature. I

predict that the next group of farmers to appear on the steps of this

building will be the farmers that ask whether or not they have, in

fact, a minister of Agriculture.

My colleague from Burrard mentioned that it was unfortunate that the

minister doesn't have before us a salary vote that we can talk about.

That was a symbolic significance, too, and makes a larger statement

than the minister himself may realize, Mr. Chairman. There is no salary

vote for the Minister of Agriculture because by common account we have

no Minister of Agriculture. So I would like, through you, Mr. Chairman,

to commend the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for his job in holding

the department together while the Minister of Agriculture spends 98 per

cent of his time administering his other portfolio. I congratulate the

deputy minister and I ask the House to join me in doing so. We

recognize your

[ Page 1426 ]

achievements at least, Mr. Deputy Minister.

The minister did tell us that he was a minister who intended to take

action. Well, I have a constituent who asked the minister to take

action, through myself. I wrote a letter quite a while ago. I received

originally a letter from a gentleman. I won't use his name but he is an

orchidist in Victoria. You may recall the correspondence. He lives on

the Trans-Canada Highway; he is a respected businessman in the city of

Victoria. He asked my help in dealing with a problem that he has with

the credit branch of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of

Agriculture, who today tells us he is the first one to take quick

action, has so far taken no action at all.

I received a phone call yesterday concerning this matter again,

because it is one, Mr. Chairman, of some urgency. I would like, if I

may, in the Legislature, although I had not intended to, to draw it to

the attention of the minister because I am hoping that the man of

action will take some action on this one. I received my first letter on

April 7. I made some inquiries and forwarded my letter to the minister

on April 30, the letter hoping for some quick assurance that a

deadline, which, through no fault of his own the owner of this orchid

business had missed, could be extended by the minister's personal

intervention. If I might, briefly I will read from the letter — again,

not using the businessman's name, but the minister does have the

correspondence, the minister who takes action on everything that comes

his way. I would ask if today he would be willing — or perhaps the

deputy minister on his behalf would be willing — to make a commitment

to allow this responsible businessman in Victoria, who through no fault

of his own missed a deadline, to come in under that deadline in order

to obtain the benefits that by accounts are rightfully his, offered by

the credit branch of the Department of Agriculture.

The letter is as follows:

"Mr. Proctor of Westcoast Credit Savings Union

suggested that I contact you with a problem which neither the credit

union nor I can solve. The problem is with the B.C. Department of

Agriculture, credit branch, and relates to grants in regard to rebates

on interest paid on moneys borrowed from a lending institution to carry

out farm business.

"Late in 1975 I visited Mr. M. Thompson, head of the

credit branch, and found out that our enterprise" — this orchid

business in Victoria — "qualifies for grants in this respect. I was

given all the necessary information and on January 20, 1976, I asked

Mr. Proctor of the credit union to fill out the application forms. They

can be obtained from any lending institution and are to be filled out

by them. Westcoast did not have any because they never received any

from the Department of Agriculture. On March 4, the forms were still

not available so I visited the Department of Agriculture and was told

the deadline, March 1, had now passed.

"Now according to the Department of Agriculture there

are two ways in which a person can find out about the deadline. The

application states, though, that those forms are not available. Second,

the department advertised in 40 British Columbia newspapers about the

deadline (but not in Victoria's three papers and not in any of the

trade journals which I receive).

"For these reasons I asked Mr. Thompson if we could fill out the forms and backdate them. But this was not to be considered."

The letter goes on with some personal remarks. The minister has

received the entire correspondence. I would like the Minister of action

and Agriculture to tell the House that he is willing to make an

exception for this respected Victoria businessman to allow him to come

under the date which he missed through no fault of his own, and to

inform him today by phone, if you wish, that he will have an

opportunity to apply for the grants which rightfully and reasonably are

his. Will the minister give such an undertaking today?

I was hoping for a phone call. As I mentioned, there was some

urgency to this matter. As every day passes, he's missing business

opportunities which I know, as a private enterprise supporter, the

Minister of Agriculture does indeed endorse. I hope today he might make

a statement to this House. I would be delighted if he would be willing

to call the man himself and tell him that the deadline in his case will

be extended. Will the minister reply?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member who was to follow is not here. The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I yield to the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is not in his place.

MRS. WALLACE: He's in his place now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

I'm glad to see that the minister is responding a little bit more

today. I'd like to have a little bit of information. There is a lot of

concern. I think that the comment has been made earlier about failure

of ministers in general to get up and give some sort of an overview of

their department and how they see the responsibilities, particularly in

this first session of the Legislature. For these ministers, new to

their task, it would be good if they would follow what I

[ Page 1427 ]

understand to be pretty well parliamentary traditions in giving some

overview and giving something of an idea to members so that they can

respond instead of having to probe and make accusations.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

In fact, it might even keep the level of debate a little bit higher

when he attempts to set things off on a bad footing. For instance, the

minister might have referred to the policy handbook of the British

Columbia Social Credit Party and could have given us a little progress

report on how he's doing on the points of the platform.

He was talking about how our abundant supply of home-grown food

products must be preserved and what he's doing to preserve these

products, about establishing a performance programme which assures the

primary producer independence and equality of work and living

standards, assuring the adequacy of food supplies through the

development of family-operated agricultural units.

What is the minister doing, Mr. Chairman, about an emphasis on the

family farm and offering B.C.'s Crown-owned farm lands to private

ownership by Canadians? Well, even that's their policy.... What

progress is he making? I'm sure particularly some of his backbenchers

would be interested in hearing about establishing young people in

agriculture under conditions which ensure the development of viable

production units, providing economically feasible farm-income assurance

programmes based on actual cost of production formulas.

We see that everything is going up this year, except allowances for

farm-income assurance. We see that energy costs are going up

alarmingly, that in fact it seems to be with the concurrence of

government that some items which are very necessary farm items have not

been exempted from an increased sales tax. Everything is going up, and

the cost of production is going up, but the formula hasn't been

changed. Yet these are points in the Social Credit platform

So these are some of the things we might have expected to hear in

opening remarks. We do see that it's creating concern. In Farm News ,

for instance, the B.C. correspondent to the Farm News , Malcolm

Turnbull, moonlights for the Province when he's not engaged full time

with the Farm News .

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking the press!

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's complimenting the press.

MR. NICOLSON: He says: "It now appears that what happened to

agriculture between 1972 and 1975 is past history and due for some

erosion." He says: "For the province's farmers, the good life didn't

come until the election in 1972 of the NDP. The socialist hordes, as

W.A.C. Bennett called them, gave the industry a strong minister and

cabinet cooperation, and from this the agricultural industry got many

beneficial farm reforms such as the preservation of farmland, income

assurance, provincial credit and programmes for secondary farm

industry."

Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — it's absolutely in

contradiction to some of the statements you've just enunciated. In

fact, the closing note is to quote one senior civil servant, "who is

not an NDP supporter, put it: 'We don't know where we are going.'"

That's a pretty sad state of affairs. This was after the budget was

out, and they don't know where they're going.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know where I'm going — right down the tube.

MR. NICOLSON: But it certainly looks like a return to the

good old days. They've only been in power for three months but it's

hard to keep their spirits up. It's hard for people with government

jobs to keep their spirits up. Think what it's like for people in the

farm industry, people who have equities, people who have loans, people

who work long hours for really little return on their investment. How

must it be for them to keep their spirits up?

This same civil servant — not identified in this

article — and I'm

sure there is a basis in fact, said: "Maybe they should announce that

they want to do away with farming in this province."

That's what it looked like at times under W.A.C. Bennett. It also

mentioned some concerns of Mr. Wessel and others, and a lot has been

said about what might be unwillingness of the minister to meet with

farm groups, or his reluctance.... I understand some of the

difficulties that minister might be facing. You cannot meet with

everybody when you are in the position of being a minister, and I guess

it's doubly so when.... At least you can't get around to meeting

everybody in the first six months of office that you would like to meet

with. In fact, you'd like to meet with everybody.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): He just met his deputy. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Is he meeting with anybody? What are the

problems? Why has this minister perhaps been less able to meet with

people? I don't think we've heard this same criticism that municipal

councils haven't been able to get to the Minister of Housing and

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He has a double portfolio — but

in this double portfolio there's an extreme difference.

[ Page 1428 ]

I've looked at this, Mr. Chairman, and I have tried to be

constructive, and I wondered. I do know that in addition, and something

that might have escaped notice, is that the Minister of Agriculture and

Economic Development is also on the board of directors of B.C. Rail,

and I believe he's on the board of directors of BCDC.

In order that I can try to understand some of the problems faced, I

ask the minister to just answer this one question: what other boards

are you on? I'm not asking about Aspol Motors; I'm asking in line with

your duties as Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Economic

Development, what other boards are you required to sit on as a

director, and what other duties do you have? That's all I want, just a

very simple little

summary. If you are on any other boards of

directors, tell us if you are or aren't, and then if you are on

some...if you'd let us know which ones.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the problem

mentioned by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I want to say

that your problem is not an isolated case in the province; there were

numerous farmers who applied after the deadline. You realize that we

have to set a deadline; otherwise we can't compute the interest. If we

consider it for one farmer, we have to consider it for 300 other

farmers in the province. We have to consider it for all the others, and

if we set it back this year, then what do we do? I want to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that we're going to take a look at it. As a matter of

fact, about 10 days ago I asked for a complete report of all those

involved, and the dates, and certainly we'll take a look at it.

I'm not saying we're going to change; I'm not saying we're going to

back up on our deadline this time, but I'm saying we're going to take a

look at it — always take a second look. We'll take a look at the

principles involved — it won't happen today and it won't happen

tomorrow, but we'll take a look at it.

Mr. Chairman, there's been a lot of talk here about the Minister of

Agriculture spending 2 per cent. Well, that's political, you know; they

have to have something to talk about. They're a poor, frustrated group

and they have to talk about something.

I'm not going to read it, but I've a long list of the number of

agricultural groups — and it's growing every day — that I've met with

since becoming Minister of Agriculture. I haven't refused to see any

group but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been available to

go out to speak to every luncheon and every banquet I have been invited

to. But I don't think any agricultural group that has come to the door

of the Minister of Agriculture...that the door hasn't been opened wide.

I've offered to see them, and I've been willing to sit down with them.

I've talked to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and I'll talk to

them again. We're negotiating with them; the door is not closed. We're

negotiating and they know where they're going.

I want to tell you tha