1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, APRIL 22, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 5137

Sale of Crown land to Happy Valley Timber. Mr. Mitchell –– 5138

Mr. Lauk –– 5138

Sweeney Cooperage lease litigation. Mr. Barnes –– 5138

Health hazard at Alcan smelter. Mr. Howard –– 5138

Natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 5138

Racial discrimination. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 5139

Tabling Documents

Constitutional accord and Canadian patriation plan.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5140

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5140

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Ritchie

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Hall

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Dailly

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman special report number 1.

Mr. Speaker –– 5161

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are representatives of the National Farmers Union who met

with some of the members of the Social Credit caucus and myself this

morning. I'd like to introduce them to the House: Mr. Frank Breault,

Wes Clarke, Vic Nobbs, Olive Nobbs, Jean Leahy, Ruth Veiner, Jordie

Stanten, Peggy Stanten, Vernon Coombs, Stuart Thiessen and Jack McCloy.

I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my greetings to the members of the

National Farmers Union who also met with our caucus, and wish them a

good visit to Victoria.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) I would like to introduce a welcome guest to the Legislature, the

mayor of Surrey, Mayor Don Ross, and I would ask the House to bid him

welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, partisan politics

aside, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, as Mr. Don Ross and I played football

with the B.C. Lions many years ago.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor with us from Winnipeg, Manitoba. His

name is Frank Metcalfe; he's an associate of Jim Hume. I would ask the

House to welcome him.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery with us this afternoon are three loggers from that great north

country. One of them is a former member of this House, Mr. Howard

Lloyd, the former member for Fort George. Accompanying Howard this

afternoon are Mr. Archie Strimbold from my great constituency of

Omineca and Mr. Gerry Kirsky, another logger from the north. I would

ask this House to make them all welcome.

MR. REE: Mr.

Speaker, speaking of the north country, in the gallery we have His

Worship Derrick Humphrey from West Vancouver on the North Shore. I

think few people realize that part of my constituency does extend into

West Vancouver. I would ask the House to welcome His Worship.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is also hope in the gallery today. Would the House please welcome Frank Klassen, editor of the Hope Standard .

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, Mayor Don Ross has already been introduced, as has Mayor

Derrick Humphrey. They're going to be joining, hopefully, the mayor of

my home city of Kelowna, Mayor Dale Hammill, and Mr. Stewart Fleming,

Kelowna city manager, and of course Chief J.J. Hornell, president of

the B.C. Police Chiefs Association. I hope to have a meeting with them

this afternoon. I ask the House to welcome them all.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today two citizens from

my constituency. Both are members of the regional district of the area.

One is also an alderperson. Wendy Quinn is an alderperson from Port

Clements in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Betty Bitterlich is the

regional director for area D on the Queen Charlottes. They're down here

visiting myself and some ministers. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is working with me to try to bring, some

autonomy to the Queen Charlotte Islands. We'll be meeting with the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) later this

afternoon to do the same. I hope. I ask you to join with me in

welcoming these two people to the Legislature today.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of saying to you today that one of the

largest delegations ever to visit the Legislature is in the gallery:

168 students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School are in the

gallery at the present time. They are under the direction of Mr.

Archibald. Mrs. Robinson, Mr. Bondar, Mr. Bugler, Mr. Embree and Mr.

Edmonds. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 8 states that every

member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of

absence has been given him by the House. I've raised this question on

several occasions. During question period, which is about to be called

under standing orders, the opposition has many questions to ask of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is in charge of the

administration of justice in this province. The question of the

administration of justice.... Here he is now.

My point of

order is that the service of the House begins at the ringing of the

division bells at approximately 2 o'clock. All Crown ministers should

be in their places to answer during question period. This is the only

opportunity that members of the opposition have to question ministers.

Through us the public learns information of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you. hon. member. I'm sure that the member understands standing

order 8, having raised it several times. I'm sure also that the member

is not suggesting that the Speaker should summon members to the

chamber. I believe that what we should do is continue the practice of

the House: that is, that members should be in the House at 2 o'clock,

and failing that, should at least be in the precincts of the House.

Oral Questions

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Some 300,000 acres, or

nearly 30 percent, of the agricultural lands in the Peace River area

are now owned by absentee foreigners. Can the Attorney-General advise

whether he has decided to take action to prevent the foreign ownership

of land in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that that is a question of policy, not an appropriate one for a question.

[ Page 5138 ]

MS. SANFORD:

My question to the minister was: "Has he decided?" I'm not asking about

future policy, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking whether at this moment he has

decided whether or not to take action.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At this moment a decision has not been made.

MS. SANFORD:

My next question is to the Minister of, Agriculture and Food. A year

ago an undertaking was made by the minister to monitor the sale of B.C.

agricultural land to absentee foreigners. Could the minister advise the

House what the result of that monitoring is?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

SALE OF CROWN LAND

TO HAPPY VALLEY TIMBER

MR. MITCHELL: I have a

question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General confirm

that Crown land on which a juvenile correction camp is located is being

offered for sale through secret negotiations and without public tender

to Happy Valley Timber Ltd.?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I

cannot confirm the matter raised by the hon. member. If he has

particulars, I'd be happy to examine them and take the question as

notice.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the

Provincial Secretary. Can the minister confirm that BCBC is negotiating

on behalf of the Attorney-General's department with the foreign-owned

company, Happy Valley Timber Ltd., for the sale of Crown land in

Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated?

MR. LAUK: Did the Provincial Secretary hear the question? I'll yield to the Provincial Secretary if he wishes to answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Would the member kindly repeat the question?

MR. MITCHELL:

Can the minister confirm that BCBC is negotiating on behalf of the

Attorney-General's department with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the

sale of Crown land in Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile

correction camp is situated?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm that information, but I'd be happy to take the question as notice and provide further information.

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the same minister. Is the minister aware of the name

of such a company: Happy Valley Timber Ltd.? Does he know of such a

company?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not familiar with the company, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that Happy Valley Timber Ltd. is a wholly foreign-owned corporation?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If he's not familiar with it during the course of these kinds of negotiations, he should resign as minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not hear a question.

The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is seeking the floor.

MR. MITCHELL:

The question I was wanting to put to the Attorney-General again is:

would he confirm that Happy Valley Timber is a foreign-owned company?

SWEENEY COOPERAGE LEASE LITIGATION

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. In a letter from B.C. Place to the solicitor for Sweeney

Cooperage dated January 30, 1981, B.C. Place revealed confidential

information from B.C. Development Corporation, a Crown corporation

under your control. This information was obtained as a result of a loan

application by Frank Sweeney to B.C. Development Corporation. Has the

minister decided to investigate this serious breach of confidence by

B.C. Development Corporation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second member for Vancouver Centre's question, I'll take the question on notice.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's candidness. I'm quite sure

he's taken it as notice because he has not familiarized himself with

the issue. I would suggest to him that this is not a new issue. It's an

issue that has gone on for some time. This information I received was

an affidavit which was made available quite recently in a trial. The

minister is telling us that he'll take it as notice. Is the minister

aware that there has been litigation taking place with respect to the

expropriation of the lease which is held by Sweeney Cooperage Ltd. and

owned by B.C. Place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker,

I would suggest that the member quit abusing the rules of question

period and ask questions, not use it to make speeches. I'll take his

question on notice.

HEALTH HAZARD AT ALCAN SMELTER

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Based upon the

results of medical examinations with respect to the aluminum smelter at

Kitimat, owned and operated by the Aluminum Co. of Canada, resulting in

the disclosure that serious health hazards exist for the workers in

that operation, I wonder if the minister has made a decision to

investigate the Workers' Compensation Board's failure to pay attention

to the deplorable health hazards that exist at the Alcan smelter in

Kitimat.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't answer the

question with any particularity at all. I'm aware of the inquiry and

the study which was conducted, and it is my intention to follow it up

with the WCB. I'm not really in a position to give a full answer to

that question, but I will take it as notice if that will assist the

member, because I intend to look into it.

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO

VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. With reference

to the government's decision to give the green light to B.C. Hydro's

proposal for a natural gas line to Vancouver Island over that of

Westcoast Transmission, can the minister advise what the cost of

service per thousand cubic feet of delivering gas to Vancouver Island

under the B.C. Hydro proposal is?

[ Page 5139 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I take that question as notice. The cost of service for gas delivered

on Vancouver Island would depend on a number of factors, not the least

of which is the capital cost of the construction. There is also the

number of customers to be served under either proposal, but it's

primarily the capital cost. The capital cost of a new pipeline of some

350 kilometres through the very wild and environmentally sensitive

country of the interior of this province as compared to a short,

39-kilometre pipeline in the southern part of the province would bear

quite heavily on the cost of service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

If the minister doesn't know the answer to that question, perhaps he

can advise what the cost of service per thousand cubic feet of

delivering gas to Vancouver Island under the Westcoast Transmission

proposal is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: One can’t answer

that question, because it carries too many variables with it to have

one answer for the cost of service. The first and most important part

of that concept would be how much gas would be carried; then how many

customers would be served; what the capital cost of the service would

be; whether or not the cost of service would be rolled in over the

entire province so that gas purchasers in Vancouver, for instance — or

in Fort St. John and other parts of the province — would be helping to

pay for the cost of service of the gas to Vancouver Island. All of

those things would be up to the Utilities Commission and would first of

all require a ruling, for Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd., from the

National Energy Board, and secondly, if it's B.C. Hydro, it would

require a ruling on cost of service from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

So that is not a question that can be answered without first of all

knowing the answers for all of those other variables.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'm surely amazed that this minister could give the go-ahead to one

project over another without knowing the costs of either proposal. Is

the minister aware then that the Westcoast proposal could and would

deliver natural gas to Vancouver Island at $1.61 per thousand cubic

feet cheaper than the B.C. Hydro proposal?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's the kind of propaganda which is being put forward, but it's an

absolutely hysterical set of figures. There's no possible way that

until all of those other questions are answered — including the capital

cost, which for the northern line is more than double that for the

southern route — those cost-of-service figures can be included. It

would be irresponsible — and is irresponsible, as a matter of fact —

for someone to attempt to establish those cost-of-service figures

without knowing what the true costs are going to be. Those costs are

established through the regulatory manners by which they've

traditionally been established.

Again, I must remind the member that Westcoast has had no problems in increasing

its cost of service to the provincial government through the National Energy

Board. The B.C. Utilities Commission will be asked to decide those major questions

about whether or not gas prices will be rolled in and whether or not there could

be a different price for gas on Vancouver Island compared to the rest of the

province. It will be those determinations which will decide the cost of service.

The important factor, however, is that we're looking at two proposals, one

of which carries with it extreme environmental considerations. It carries with

it the possibility of crossing seven rivers, some of them two and three times.

It carries with it twice as much capital cost. It carries with it far too many

uncertainties. The work which has been done by British Columbia Hydro is approximately

one year ahead of the work that has been done by Westcoast Transmission.

Once

more I repeat that anyone who would attempt to usurp the function of

the Utilities Commission or the National Energy Board and pull in....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I remind the members that the function of the Utilities Commission is

as a regulatory body. It's absolutely irresponsible to consider that

those figures could be established without knowing the facts of how

those kinds of questions will be answered. In the long run, it will

depend on the recommendations that the government will get from the

B.C. Utilities Commission about the way in which cost-of-service

figures will be established. Those questions cannot be answered at this

time.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) asked a

question which I took as notice. The question alleged that I or the

assistant deputy minister, Stephen Stackhouse, had somehow interfered

with the authority of the human rights director in the Chandrama Mishra

complaint involving the Vancouver Community College. In reply to the

question, I would like to state that at no time have I or any other

official of the ministry interfered or intervened in any investigation

being conducted by the human rights branch.

Mr. Mishra filed

a complaint with the branch in June 1980, alleging that because of his

colour and place of origin, he had been discriminated against by the

nursing faculty of Vancouver Community College. An investigation was

commenced by the human right officer with the branch. On September 26,

1980, the branch contacted Stephen Stackhouse, who was at that time a

legal officer with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, seconded to

the Ministry of Labour. The branch requested Mr. Stackhouse to deal

directly with Vancouver Community Collee's solicitor for the purpose of

enabling the investigating officer to obtain certain evidence. As a

result of his involvement as solicitor for the human rights branch, the

obstacles to the investigation were removed, and the investigation

continued in accordance with the normal investigatory procedure of the

human rights branch.

During the latter part of February

1981, an apparent misunderstanding arose as to the further conduct of

the investigation. Again, at the request of the branch, Mr. Stackhouse

provided legal assistance. On March 10, 1981, Nola Landucci, who is the

director of the branch, instructed him to advise the solicitor for

Vancouver Community College that the branch would release particulars

of the allegations to the college's solicitor and then conduct

interviews with certain instructors of the college. This satisfactorily

resolved the apparent misunderstanding.

On March 17, a meeting took place with the complainant, his solicitor, and Ms. Landucci. Given the context of the

[ Page 5140 ]

position

taken by the director on March 10, and the concerns expressed by the

complainant in the March 17 meeting, it was Mr. Stackhouse's legal

advice — I repeat, his legal advice, and not his instruction, as

alleged — that a meeting between the solicitor for Vancouver Community

College and the director of the human rights branch would be

appropriate. The director of the branch accepted this advice and met

with the respondant's solicitor on March 27, 1981. As anticipated, the

meeting was productive, and the investigation is now continuing,

pursuant to the conditions established by the branch on March 10.

might say that human rights officers perform a difficult job in

conducting investigations of complaints made under the Human Rights

Code. Those investigations which they conduct are thorough, and adhere

to the legal requirements of the fair process. There are no

restrictions placed on the officers during an investigation. If the

evidence is relevant, then the full authority of the code is used to

gain access to that evidence.

It has taken some time. There

are massive amounts of documents to be studied, and there are a large

number of people to be interviewed. I hope that satisfactorily answers

the question which the member raised at this point in time.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the constitutional accord and the

Canadian patriation plan that were signed in Ottawa last Thursday,

April 16, by eight Premiers representing eight governments, in our

country.

MR. LAUK: I rise under the provisions of

standing order 35 to request leave to move adjournment of the House for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. LAUK:

Under the School Act, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) sets the mill rate for provincial

school property taxes on April 16, or April 20, I think. Today is the

first opportunity that this assembly has to deal with the shattering

announcement of Monday, this week, that the property tax mill rate will

be increased.

On December 1, 1980, the Ministry of Education

issued a news release projecting the 1981 basic levy at 41.2 mills.

This projected rate is formidable enough, considering the extraordinary

increases in assessed property values throughout the province, let

alone the announcement made Monday. These increases in assessed

property values in no way indicate, as the minister knows, increased

ability to pay on the part of taxpayers. In fact, rising costs,

together with these assessment increases, make it very difficult for

homeowners to come up with the tax increases.

We in the

opposition, and school trustees across the province, after the

minister's announcement on Monday, are of the view that this government

is attacking the basis of homeownership in the province. It is now

increasingly evident that the Social Credit government has been intent

on bleeding homeowners through this indirect taxation. The use of

market-value assessments, followed by an increase in the mill rate, is

a one-two punch which homeowners are having great difficulty

withstanding. The situation is extremely urgent, in view of the fact

that the end of this month is the date on which school districts must

finalize their budgets. In the present situation, some school

districts, particularly those in the lower mainland, are considering

precipitous action. School trustees are not prepared to take the rap

for another Social Credit tax increase which is not revealed in the

budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think we have the statement of the matter. We are now beginning to debate the merits of the matter.

MR. LAUK:

The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many

cases in the province of school tax bills doubling to homeowners,

before the announcement. This situation is unacceptable. It is a

reflection of an underhanded policy. My colleagues and I take great

exception to it.

Therefore I request leave to move the

following motion:

Be it resolved that the House do now adjourn for the

purpose of debating massive, unwarranted increases in school property

taxes, the decline in provincial support for education, and the serious

effect of these developments on homeowners throughout British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I will reserve decision without prejudice to the hon.

member and, in so doing, remind all hon. members that in presenting

matters of urgent public importance under standing order 35, it is

important that we clearly state the matter and not go into the merits

or debate the issues, or enter into the argument of the case itself. I

will bring a decision to the House as quickly as I can.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I elaborated to the extent I did is that,

I think you'll find, in my statement I covered most of the points that

Mr. Speaker usually raises in Mr. Speaker's decisions on such motions

under standing order 35: urgency and the subject matter itself.

But

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you would deal with the matter after a

short recess. The reason I'm asking this is that elected school

trustees in this province are considering action that requires the

immediate attention of the government and this Legislature. I

respectfully request that the Chair recess, consider the matter and

bring in a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I

think what I'll do is follow the normal procedure — in an instance in

which I like to give the matter further consideration rather than just

to consider its urgency out of hand. I would like to consider this one

a little longer. Therefore I reserve decision. I believe that we should

not interrupt the business of the House but that the business should

proceed, and then we can return to this matter as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $160,971.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned about a week and a half ago, we were

discussing one of the minister's responsibilities relative to the Land

Commission

[ Page 5141 ]

and

agricultural land. During the course of my remarks on the last day we

sat I dealt with the situation that had occurred in the Fraser Valley

with the so-called Buckerfield Farm, where dealing and changing hands

on that particular piece of valuable farm property had driven the price

from $5,000 per acre up to in excess of $10,000 — more than double in a

matter of two or three months. I think that that is an example of the

kind of thing that has been happening and that has made it very

difficult for farmers to operate in the province of British Columbia.

The Financial Times , in their March 23 edition of this year, ran an

article which dealt with farmland — "On

the Fast Track" was its title — and they estimated that the average

appreciation of agricultural land across Canada was 17.5 percent. I

think it's obvious that here in British Columbia the rate is much

higher, because in many other areas we have some kind of legislation

that controls and protects farmland relative to ownership, particularly

relative to people who are absentee owners living outside the province.

Saskatchewan had legislation passed in 1980 forbidding anyone Outside

the province to own more than ten acres of land: Quebec did the same

thing in 1979. Before that, Manitoba all but closed off purchases by

non-Canadians, and earlier still. Prince Edward Island moved to protect

its land.

Yet here in British Columbia we have no

legislation to make that kind of move to protect agricultural land for

agricultural use. Instead, it's being allowed to fall into the hands of

developers in small parcels, as was the case with the Buckerfield Farm

— down as low as 3.4 acres — to remove the viability of that farmland

and put further pressure on the rural setting by mixing urbanization in

with the agricultural area. In Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact, they

moved first in April 1974. They brought in the Saskatchewan Farm

Ownership Act, which restricted non-resident individuals to a maximum

of $15,000 in assessed value. Non-agricultural corporations were also

limited. But even in the face of that piece of legislation, in

Saskatchewan they still found that there was a continuing erosion and

price increase of agricultural land. It was still being bought up by

non-residents from under the feet of the would-be agricultural people.

In the constituency of Last Mountain–Touchwood, which is the richest

farming land in the constituency, 34 acres were bought up by what

became known as "German interests." That was done in the face of the

fact that they had the legislation they had. It wasn't until last year

that they moved in and made a more binding and stronger piece of

legislation. The prices there sound very cheap to us here in B.C., but

$400 an acre for farmland in Saskatchewan was very unrealistic to the

people who were having to buy that land. Those provinces have taken

moves to protect the agricultural interests by trying to control the

foreign ownership.

What we have here is a minister of the

Crown saying that there is no problem. It's interesting to note that he

comes up with a fraction of 1 percent — or something like that —

foreign ownership. It seems to me that the only way that he could

arrive at such a figure would be to simply take owners as they're

listed on the titles, regardless of, the acreage or number of hectares

that particular owner happens to purchase. When you think of comparing

a city lot to a parcel of land of 3,000 or 4,000 acres, you are

certainly looking at two entirely different things. It seems to me that

this is the only way this minister could have arrived at that kind of a

figure. I have it on fairly good authority that the figure of 30

percent that has been fairly well substantiated in the Peace River area

in the northern part of the province is probably quite accurate right

across the province. To hide behind the figure of 1 percent foreign

ownership is simply avoiding the problem. The Minister of Agriculture

and Food continues to tell us that he's committed to the preservation

of agricultural land. In fact, I heard him speak. I think it was in the

interior somewhere, and he told us he was going to etch the reserve in

stone and served notice that that was going to happen. Shortly after

that the Vancouver Sun did an editorial which I think is worth reading into the record. It's dated March 14, 1981.

"It

wasn't so many weeks ago that Agriculture minister Jim Hewitt was

saying that the time is fairly close when no more areas in Richmond and

Delta will be allowed out of the agricultural land reserve. He was no

more specific than that. It was a vague statement rather than a

commitment — a reflection more than anything else of widespread public

concern about the ease with which the cabinet had released Spetifore's

523 acres in south Delta for housing, and the pressure building up for

similar exclusions elsewhere.

"Anyone looking for reassurance that the cabinet had resolved

that enough was enough, and that it would no longer play politics with agricultural

land or the land commissioners whose expert judgment should be the last word

in preservation of a rapidly diminishing resource, did not get it from Mr. Hewitt.

Nor, we are obliged to say, do they seem likely to get it from any other member

of a cabinet that since 1977 has accelerated and presided over the removal of

more and more land from the province's agricultural land reserve."

The

editorial goes on. It winds up by saying that what we desperately need

"is a cohesive land-use policy — something that not only will make

sense to people but may in truth be the only insurance we have of being

able to feed ourselves in future." Of course the body of the

article

deals with the continuing conflict between the various ministries —

Forests, Housing, and supposedly Agriculture, although we never bear

anything about Agriculture being in there to protect the farmers'

interests.

It's interesting to note, what happened in Prince

George when the sitting member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan)

indicated that agriculture should not even be considered in that area.

I'm sorry that that member is not in the House at this particular point

in time. He was attacked in the Prince George Citizen for the

stand he took: "Statements by MLA Anger Area Farmers." "Local farmers

say Prince George South MLA Bruce Strachan has put his foot firmly in

the manure by saying he didn't believe farming is a viable industry in

that area." They went so far as to lobby that particular member and

presented him with a great many reasons why agriculture should and

could be viable in the Prince George area. But I think that member's

attitude is an example of the attitude of the members on that side of

the House relative to the preservation of agricultural land. It's a

very low priority with those people.

I think that's also

true when it comes to the situation with the Site C dam. I spoke

briefly about this earlier, and the minister responded by saying that

he had replied. True, he replied to the invitation, saying he couldn't

come to the meeting being held to air, hopefully, both sides of the

question. What he did not do, according to'the members of the Peace

River environmental society, was respond to their second request which

asked him, inasmuch as he was not able

[ Page 5142 ]

be present, to send a prepared statement which could be read into the

record. That statement was not in evidence at the meeting which I

referred to earlier.

I referred briefly to the minister's

approach towards the whole Site C project. According to the press, he

is not prepared to take a stand in opposition to the Site C dam going

in. In fact, all he is prepared to do is somehow try to evaluate or

equate the worth of agricultural land in dollars and cents: to replace

agricultural land with dollars. Agricultural land is not replaceable

with dollars. Dollars will not produce food, provide a base for our

agricultural industry or support the infrastructure to make a viable

and continuing industry.

I have in my hand — it's undated,

unfortunately, but it's some 19 pages — the B.C. Ministry of

Agriculture approach to the B.C. Hydro Site C reservoir project. It

says a lot of great things about agriculture. It says that it's

possible to distinguish two sources of social value which will be

forgone when agricultural land in the Site C reservoir is lost to

flooding. It goes on to say that "the value of production-cost savings

to the consumers in the region...." It's admitting that there would be

a saving to consumers in the Peace River, but they're going to replace

that with dollars. It says:

"A substantial

growth of population is expected in the region, principally in the

towns of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. Projections indicate

that population will more than double over the next decade, with

large-scale development of coal deposits. Such increases in population,

coupled with a predictable sharp rise in fuel costs, should create

powerful incentives for an increasing production locally. The loss to

consumers arising from the loss of agricultural land to the reservoir

is a loss associated with land as an input in local food production."

Yet

he's not prepared to fight for that agricultural land; he's going to

trade it off for an estimated $70 million, half of which will go into

government projects and half of which will go in the forms of loans to

local producers, to somehow compensate for the loss of land and somehow

make land available in other areas, in Fort Nelson perhaps — put in

some kind of transportation system. But how do you compensate for the

land in Fort Nelson? As Hugh Shelford put it, very aptly, they keep on

making people, but they're not making any more land. No dollars and

cents that you take in return for destruction of agricultural land are

going to compensate for that land. Yet we have a minister supposedly

charged with the responsibility of speaking out for the agricultural

community — now also speaking out for food and the food needs of this

province — who is prepared to sit quietly by while perhaps his first

love, energy, takes precedence over his interest in agriculture. He

lets the Site C Dam go ahead with no move to protect that agricultural

land. In spite of loud concerns expressed not just by the politicians

on this side of the House, but by those very agricultural people whom

he's supposed to represent, by the organized agricultural bodies in

this province and by individual after individual, he sits and takes no

action, Mr. Chairman. I'm extremely concerned about that. I'm concerned

about his entire attitude towards the agricultural land reserve and the

Agricultural Land Commission.

Quite frequently I have had

the occasion recently to discuss certain matters with Dr. Friedmann,

the ombudsman, particularly in relation to a problem in my own

constituency, where the minister's handling of raw milk sales is being

investigated. I will deal with that one at greater length when we're

dealing with that type of agricultural enterprise. I noticed a column

in the newspaper on country life where there was mention that the

ombudsman was also investigating the Ministry of Agriculture relative

to the Agricultural Land Commission. In my discussions with Dr.

Friedmann, I asked him whether or not it would be possible to make any

of that correspondence available to me. Certainly I can understand that

when an individual is being investigated, that's a private matter. But

when a ministry is being investigated for, perhaps, interference in a

public body, in a commission, then surely that should be public

information. The ombudsman was inclined to agree with me.

It's

my understanding that the Agricultural Land Commission Act makes that

Agricultural Land Commission autonomous. It should not be beholden to

the Minister of Agriculture for any of its administrative policies;

neither should it really be beholden for its dollars and cents, Mr.

Chairman. It would be much more effective if, in fact, it submitted its

budget as a separate entity rather than part of the Agriculture

minister's budget. That would then make the commission much more

autonomous. I think that the minister would perhaps agree with me that

that act is very explicit. It does indicate that the Land Commission

is, and should be, completely autonomous. I'm concerned when I find

that we're in a situation where the ombudsman has been called in to

review whether or not the Land Commission is autonomous. I would like

the minister's assurance today that he considers the Land Commission an

autonomous body and is not interfering in any way with its day-to-day

operation, either administratively or from a policy point of view. If

the minister is prepared to give me that assurance, I would be happy to

take my place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the

member for Cowichan-Malahat made some comment regarding a cohesive

agricultural land reserve policy. I guess we could stand here all day

and debate the issue as to whether or not this government does or does

not have that type of policy. The only thing I can say to the member,

which she is fully aware of, is that in my budget under the Provincial

Agricultural Land Commission between the 1980-81 fiscal year and the

1981-82 fiscal year, we've moved from $1.1 million up to $1.6 million —

a 50 percent increase. The reason for that — and the member knows this

full well — is to carry out further review, investigation, fine tuning,

better analysis, on-site inspection — whatever you want to call it — of

agricultural land in this province. That's the reason for that

additional expenditure. We will attempt to better identify agricultural

land and the preservation of agricultural land for future food

production.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, every time you talk

about land in the reserve, it's "etched in concrete" as far as the

opposition is concerned. It is an emotional and political issue.

Regardless of whether or not it's non-agricultural land or agricultural

land, when an exclusion comes out there's a great hue and cry. I'm just

saying that this ministry and the Land Commission for which I'm

responsible is attempting to property identify the agricultural land

reserves and the preservation of that good agricultural land in this

province. As the member for Cowichan-Malahat knows, in the first

instance the Canada Land Inventory designations were used. In many

cases non-agricultural land was included in the agricultural land

reserve, and in some cases agricultural land was not included in the

reserve. As a result, we have to carry out this

[ Page 5143 ]

further

investigation. We are providing the dollars to do it. I make the point

that we do have a cohesive agricultural land reserve policy, and we

have put the dollars up front to support that policy.

regard to Site C and the development of the Site C dam, I agree with

the member that agricultural land is not replaceable and that the

decision in regard to the preservation of that land has to be

determined by what is in the public good. That determination will be

made by the Utilities Commission in their hearings. First, is the power

needed in this province? Secondly, if the energy is needed, what

alternatives are we faced with? The question has to be addressed as to

what the alternatives are. Is it hydroelectric power, which means the

damming of rivers and the flooding of valley bottoms, which impact on

agricultural land? As we all know, hydroelectric power is a renewable

resource and a non-polluting resource. Is it a matter of burning coal?

That's a possibility and an alternative, but in my opinion it has two

things against it. One, it's a limited resource. Mind you, we have a

lot of it, but you are using up a non-renewable resource. Secondly, it

does have some pollution problems. If you're looking at burning natural

gas or burning oil, you're taking one form of energy and converting it

into another form of energy. I'm not sure that that's practical. Or you

can look at nuclear power. I'm sure we're all aware in this House as to

what the public feeling is with regard to nuclear power in the province

of British Columbia.

So in the end, Madam Member, as

Minister of Agriculture I have to first of all take the stance that I

would like to see agricultural land preserved. As a member of

government and having also to recognize what is in "the public good," I

have to recognize that maybe when you analyze it, the best alternative

in the public good of this province might well be the flooding of Site

C. That is not for me to determine at this time. But if it is the case

that Site C were to go ahead, then in my opinion there has to be some

form of compensation. Whether it be in dollars or otherwise, there has

to be some form of compensation to the agricultural industry of this

province. That I will fight for if it's the case.

Those are

two questions I've responded to. On the third question, I'm not just

sure what the member for Cowichan-Malahat was attempting to ask. It

seemed to me that we were talking about an ombudsman's involvement with

the Land Commission and the hiring of staff. The Land Commission is an

autonomous body. It's appointed by me, as Minister of Agriculture, and

it is responsible to me. Having that responsibility, as the member

knows, I also have advisers. My deputy minister, senior staff and

others advise me on many issues related to agriculture and to my

responsibilities with regard to the Land Commission. That is the

involvement of my staff. That commission is responsible to me, and I,

of course, am responsible to this House with regard to any actions

taken. The member may wish to pursue that issue. I'm not exactly sure

in what form she wanted me to respond. The Land Commission is

responsible to me. They are an autonomous body, setup with a chairman,

six commissioners and a staff.

MRS. WALLACE: I was talking about the administrative and policy decisions

of the Land Commission remaining completely autonomous, not to any specific

decisions of any kind. I would like the assurance that the minister has no intention

of changing that arrangement. Would he consider the possibility, in order to

make that body completely autonomous, of allowing them to do their own budgeting

and present it in a slightly different way, similar to other Crown corporations

or commissions directly through the Minister of Finance or whatever?

response to his first remarks relative to alternatives, he talked about

some alternatives but he didn't look at other alternatives for energy.

I'm wondering whether the minister is indicating in his remarks to this

House that he is opposed to the Hat Creek coal development. He

indicated that it has various side effects. I know that a great many of

the ranchers are very concerned about that. I'm wondering whether or

not, if he's not going to take a stand on Site C, he's going to take a

stand on Hat Creek.

Mr. Minister, you say you re going to

wait and let the Utilities Commission decide. The Utilities Commission

decides on the basis of the input to those hearings. If the Ministry of

Agriculture were to make a presentation, then perhaps that Utilities

Commission would have a broader base on which to work. Does that

Utilities Commission really make the decision, or is that decision

really made in cabinet? I know that's not that minister's

responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, back

to the Land Commission. It is an autonomous body, but it is responsible

to me. In setting up their costs of operation for the year, they

prepare and present their budget to Treasury Board. The Treasury Board

deals with their submission the same as it deals with other commissions

and ministries of the government.

With regard to the

Utilities Commission, the member will be interested to know that the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be making a submission to the

hearings of the Utilities Commission. In those submissions we make, we

will be setting our case as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the

Utilities Commission.

With regard to Hat Creek coal, I was

making a comparison to the member. When you look at hydroelectric power

— many countries look at our abundance of hydroelectric power with

envy, I can safely say — it is renewable and it is nonpolluting, as

opposed to burning coal, which, as I said to the member, does have some

problems. You may have to spend a considerable amount of money to

ensure that you don't pollute the atmosphere if you're burning coal for

energy.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mounts her white charger, as many

others on the opposition benches do. With lances at the ready, they

come charging down on the government. If they dare mention even one

word about agricultural land or talk about land in any way, it's a

no-no. Agricultural land is a sacred.... Shall I use the word "cow"?

It's probably not appropriate, but it is a sacred substance that you do

not talk about.

I believe that this province and country

must come to grips.... Agricultural land in itself doesn't produce a

thing. It's the men and women willing to work the land who can produce

and do produce. It's an anomaly to me that North Dakota, South Dakota

and part of Iowa can produce more wheat than all of Canada. It seems to

me that it's not only land, but it's the will to produce and the

markets to sell it in that count.

I must say today that I'm

amazed at the arguments we hear. We speak prayerfully of agricultural

land, and certainly we should. But I think we must speak of what is

agricultural

[ Page 5144 ]

land,

and land that will produce. There is so much land in the province of

British Columbia that was thrown into the agricultural land reserve

without consideration and without knowledge of its productive value,

simply by taking the federal land inventory that was not yet then

complete and, willy-nilly, without consideration, throwing it on the

province of British Columbia, saying that forever that shall be the

agricultural land of this province. It was not complete, it was not

considered, and in most cases it was incorrect. The federal government

will be the first to say that it was just a temporary and an

originating concept. The NDP government of that day were in such a rush

to put this thing in and to take the credit for something that would

complicate the future that it was put in without consideration. An hon.

member of that same party, the minister, I think it was, of resources,

Mr. Bob Williams, said at that time that he guaranteed: "I will make

such an omelette that no one can unscramble it." He did make such an

omelette. He made one with ICBC. He made one with the agricultural land

reserve. That is a total mess. We, as government, must live with it.

I'm

getting sick and tired of that opposition sanctimoniously crying about

agricultural land. We know about agricultural land. We preserve

agricultural land. We want agriculture to succeed. That minister is

now, through his efforts, trying to upgrade the agricultural markets in

British Columbia — to make markets to sell our products. Forty-five

percent of the food we eat is produced in British Columbia. They're

trying to raise that.

We must remember that all our food is not from land. Chickens do not need one square foot of land.

MRS. WALLACE: What do they eat?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Lettuce, which we'll soon be growing without land.

Yet we need agriculture. You hear the cries over there — "oh!" Let

me tell you this: we have enough agricultural land in British Columbia in the

reserve to feed not only this country but the entire continent of North America.

We have land in the north country alone to feed all of North America if we had

to be depended on for food. That's a well-known fact. The studies are there

and established.

This opposition wants to bring across the idea that every speck of land is

of such ultimate value that it cannot be touched or considered. Land for homes

of the public of this country is every bit as important. We need land for people

to live on. They can't live in the air; they've got to live in homes.

The reason that our people cannot buy land and the land has got so expensive

is that so much of it has been frozen willy-nilly — 2 and 3 acres in Maple Ridge

and Delta, 5 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres inconsiderately frozen that have no place

in the agricultural scheme. What has happened to this land? It's been

frozen for agriculture. It can never be for agriculture — impossible. Yet when

that minister tries to fine-tune it, the cry goes out: "You're taking

away our breakfast." It's total nonsense. It is time that our government

and our minister took the bull by the horns and said: "We will fine-tune. Let us

do the right thing. Let us get this land that has no earthly use for agriculture

out of the reserve. Let us put land in the reserve that can be useful for agriculture."

I can tell you about hundreds of thousands of acres in the country north of

here that is agricultural land and has never been considered that should and

must be put in the reserve in due course. Let's put that in. Let's take

the one in the lower mainland out. Let's make places for people to live.

Let us make places for homes.

This

opposition cries about young people not being able to afford homes. Of

course they cannot afford homes when we have ordinary houses and flats

selling for $150,000. That's got to be ridiculous. What is the cost —

not only the cost of labour and products, but the cost of lots? In the

municipality of Maple Ridge a year ago a lot was available for $20,000.

Today that same lot is $65,000. Why is that? Because there is too much

land frozen within the municipality that should be released for public

housing. If enough land was released within that municipality, prices

of that land would and should go down. The same thing applies to every

municipality in the lower mainland. I'm telling you of the ridiculous

nature....

MRS. WALLACE: There's enough housing land in Dewdney until the year 2020.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I'm not talking about developers; I'm talking about homes for people.

I'm saying to you that you have a good tune to play. This tune is:

"Don't touch our agricultural land." It certainly is a good tune. It's

a popular tune, but it's not an honest tune. Honesty says that you must

release land in the areas where it can be used for public housing and

open up land that can be used for agriculture. That should be the duty

of this government. I say to you that the time has passed to pussy-foot

around this issue. Let us take a grip on the thing; let's do something.

I'll

give you an example. In Pitt Meadows there's a man and I should not

mention his name, because I do not have his permission — who lives

exactly at the east end of the Pitt River bridge. He has five acres of

land there. That man wants to take that five acres and make a farmers'

market at his own expense so that farmers can sell their produce there

and be open to the markets of the metropolitan area and the surrounding

markets. It's at a central point — an excellent point — right at the

two Pitt River bridges. He has pleaded with the Agricultural Land

Commission to release his land — no way. He cannot grow anything on

that land. It's not viable for agriculture. It's too small to produce

anything worthwhile, but yet — and I plead his case — if he was allowed

to gamble with $150,000, $200,000 or $300,000 to risk his money to

build the necessary consortium to make such a project viable, it would

require that the land be taken out of the reserve so that small

operators in the area in Delta, Burnaby, Mission, and Surrey — the

parents and children of the farms — could grow small articles and sell

them on that land in that farmers' market. But no, the

sanctimonious.... I shouldn't use the word; no, I won't use it. But no,

the answer is given that it cannot be taken from the agricultural land

reserve.

So what have we got? The municipalities are tied up

with little bits of land of two, three and five acres that can never be

farms. Yet the best agricultural land in the province was taken out by

that opposition when they were government — Tilbury Island, the Wong

farm. Name them? I can name a dozen. They were taking them out

helter-skelter. Why did they take them out? I'm not criticizing them

for removing them; I'm criticizing them for throwing the land reserve

up so fast and then finding they had made such a grave mistake trying

to fix it up. Now we call it fine-tuning.

I say to the

government that it's too late to monkey with this any more. Get down to

business. Let's open up the land for the public of British Columbia;

let's make land for people to live on. Let's reduce the price of land.

Let's put 50,000 lots on the market in the lower mainland. We could do

that

[ Page 5145 ]

without

hurting a single farm. If we did that, people could buy homes, and it's

up to us to see that it's done. Let us face the issue. I compliment the

minister on his effort and what he is doing to raise farmers'

production in British Columbia — real farmers, farmers with land, with

50 or 100 acres. Don't expect people with five and ten acres to be

farmers: that is ridiculous, out of the question. It can be in a small

way, but our hope in the future is to make farms viable, and I hope

that the minister sees his responsibility and takes this action. Today

we need 50,000 pieces of new property in the lower mainland to make it

possible to reduce the price of land, so that people can own their own

homes. This does not interfere with agriculture; agriculture will be

better than ever.

We have more than ample land everywhere.

The foothills. The finest land in British Columbia is on the southern

slopes of our hills — great agricultural land which is never mentioned

for agriculture. Why is it not agriculture? Most of it is better than

the low land; yet we put this agricultural land reserve.... It must be

fine-tuned.

My goodness, I want to tell you today that the

agricultural land reserve was slapped on in such a hurry, with so much

haste, and we're paying the price today for what was done then. I only

wish that reason had prevailed, that the omelette was not so hard to

unscramble. I remember in a previous government, when it was called the

Greenbelt Act — a marvellous idea, great stretches of land being sold

by a willing seller to the government, which was a willing buyer. Parts

of British Columbia were being made available, all this land was made

partially available to produce and will always be in the public domain.

Municipalities were required to specify their regions for housing,

agriculture, business or whatever. Pitt Meadows was the only

municipality that accomplished this procedure, and they laid out the

whole municipality as agriculture, business and homes, and it's never

been changed. That's the way it was being done by a previous

government: properly, slowly and in an orderly fashion. But today what

have we got? An agricultural land reserve that was put on without

consideration. And we have these people riding on their white chargers

and saying: "Don't touch it." Well, I just say to you, Mr. Chairman, it

must be touched, it must be adjusted, because it's no longer proper to

have a thing put on in this disorder and expect it to stand forever

untouched.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I

was first elected to this Legislature in 1969, at the same time as that

member who just spoke. I could hardly call him a colleague after that

speech. It's a speech very much like a speech I'd expect to hear from

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) or one of the other

uninformed members of the House.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

One doesn't have to be an agricultural expert to know when one is being

had, and that's what is happening to the public of British Columbia

right now with this government, and it would be even worse with the

advice of that member. You know, that member talks about five- and

ten-acre pieces of land being taken out of the agricultural land

reserves. He forgets about Gloucester; he forgets about all the large

pieces that have been taken out, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much farmland do you have in New Westminster?

MR. COCKE:

We have some farmland in New Westminster. The minister of

municipalities hasn't managed to get rid of our truck gardens down

there yet, but he'll try. He'll try to work out a way. He got rid of

ICBC headquarters, and he'll do his best.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, let me put the record straight.

The member for Dewdney, who incidentally wasn't in the House at the time

— thankfully, as the people of Dewdney were spared his presence in this House

for three and a half years — was talking about how Bob Williams said that he'd

be making such an omelette that people could never unscramble it. The fact of

the matter is that the minister in charge of the agricultural land reserve was

the Minister of Agriculture, who at that time was the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) and still is the member for Nanaimo.

It was a cabinet decision, which we all make, which included the

Minister of Forests at the time, which included all the other

ministers, including the Premier. Why was there a decision made in

haste in terms of freezing the land? It was utterly and absolutely

necessary. Both the Minister of Agriculture at the time and others came

to us and said that if we either put forward a White Paper or brought

an act to the Legislature, by the time that was proclaimed and you got

around to actually locating the agricultural land, the very good

quality land that the developers wanted could have been swallowed up.

Therefore, there was a freeze. Then came the legislation. What did the

legislation do? It declared certain classes of agricultural land in

this province to be inviolate. However, it was to be fine-tuned with

the cooperation of the regional districts in all areas of the province.

Some of the regional districts did not cooperate; some took their time.

Others

very quickly answered and indicated the areas they felt should be taken

out by virtue of development that had taken place so they didn't any

longer lend themselves to agricultural land use and indicated other

pieces of land that should be included.

I would agree with

the member for Dewdney in the suggestion that this is a very large

province. However, his intimation that we may be able to even sustain

ourselves, let alone feed all of North America with British Columbia

land, has got to be the most inane statement I’ve ever heard. Here is a

province where we import from California more of what we eat in our own

homes than we grow ourselves, and that member is telling us we can

sustain ourselves off our own land and, not only that, feed all of

North America. What a nonsensical. utterly irresponsible statement for

him to make. If your children and my grandchildren have to rely on

decisions coming out of minds like that with absolutely no information,

I suggest to you we are in jeopardy

I've suggested what

happened. I've suggested we took a tremendous beating. Even at that,

this government does not dare — other than in this piecemeal way

they're doing it now — cancel out agricultural land reserves. The

reason they can't is because they know the public would have them out

of office the very next day. It is absolutely a requirement that a

government have a commitment. What have we seen today? A government

totally without commitment and which couldn't care less.

Earlier today the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about the

whole question of foreign ownership of our land, and what did she get

for a reply? "I'll take it as notice," "No," or waffle all over the place.

The only worse speech I've heard so far this year is the one I'm going to deal with in a few moments. The member

[ Page 5146 ]

for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf).... Well, it was so bad that one should not reply

to it at all, but there are certain things he said about which I think

the record should be straightened out.

I just want to

suggest that I happened to be here, as that member was, when the

greenbelt legislation came forward from the old Socred government in

1970-71. As the member so aptly said, Pitt Meadows put their land

together. I don't know of any other municipality, city, district or

anything else that managed to put anything of significance together out

of that greenbelt legislation. What did it do? It did not do what was

necessary to conserve agricultural land. Again, the member talks about

the ease of development of the valley bottoms. We all know that, but he

also goes on to tell us that there's lots of good farmland on the

sidehills. Running a tractor up and down sidehills isn't exactly the

greatest of fun. That's where we should be developing our housing. It's

a little more expensive, but we must go to those sidehills if we are to

provide our future generations with food in this land. Someday

California's going to send a message and they're going to say: "We've

got a lot a mouths to feed ourselves; no longer can we feed yours." If

we're not ready — if we do not have land available at that time, we

have done a terrible disservice to those generations to come. Speeches

made in this House — specious arguments like that — do not do anything

to protect the heritage. Then the member made this final plea for the

five acres to be taken out of Pitt Meadows so somebody can build a

truck garden. Maybe there's some good in that request, maybe not. I'd

hate to see a Chevrolet dealership on that five acres tomorrow. It

could possibly happen, because it strikes me that we've seen that

happen before.

Mr. Chairman, who is for the Agricultural

Land Commission? I remember back in 1973-74 when the fight was on.

Everybody was running for cover. The Socreds were having a heyday: "The

NDP is going to take away your land; they're going to do this and

they're going to do that." And the threats: the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) made a major effort to tell everybody that we

would not only take away their land, we'd take away their watches,

jewellery and rings. Such utter claptrap nonsense! It was to be

expected from Socreds, but at the same time it worried some people. It

worried people like a rather conservative group called the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture. However, it didn't take that group long to

come to their senses. What are they saying now in their proposals to

government? What are they saying now in their briefs to MLAs of this

province? They're saying the following: "The BCFA's commitment to the

agricultural land reserve remains unchanged. Our opposition to the

present appeal process is well known...." We know where that appeal

process came from: the present government. I go on to quote:

"...and has been underscored by the negative exposure

and commentary surrounding the recent ELUC decisions on exclusions. The agricultural

community will continue to monitor developments in this area and express our

concerns over the integrity of the Land Commission process to the government

and public."

Mr.

Chairman, that's what they say. As a former Minister of Health, I sat

on the Environment and Land Use Committee. That committee even had some

work to do in the previous Socred government, and then we gave it lots

to do. We enhanced that committee by putting forward a secretariat.

That secretariat was to give advice to the committee. In keeping with

this stupid land policy of theirs, this government has divided and

conquered just like the old Socreds used to do. They have taken the

secretariat and dissolved it. Part of the secretariat is here under one

minister,

part is under another minister, and

part is under still

another minister. They can't get their act together.

I can

remember ministries in government when it was hard to get two

bureaucrats together within a ministry, let alone trying to put

bureaucrats together who are divided in ministries with empire-building

going on, etc. It was only done because of this government's lack of

commitment to agricultural land and preserving that agricultural land.

That's why it was done. Now they've got these groups who are powerless

— not that the secretariat was politically powerful, but the

secretariat was powerful in this respect: their advice went to the

entire Environment and Land Use Committee. I think it's an absolute

shame. Shame on this government! Down they're going to go — thankfully

— with all of their stupid policies. The sooner the better, Mr.

Chairman, for these kinds of unreasonable things that have occurred in

the past five and a half years.

I noted today in reading a

brief from the National Farmers Union similar statements and a similar

commitment to agricultural land being kept for agricultural purposes.

Yet we hear this drivel. We hear this business: "Oh, well, that land is

gravel — no good for agricultural land." Well, we heard something about

gravel the other day, didn't we? I think it was some land dubbed the

Wenger proposition. The Wenger proposition was one where the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and his former

constituency representative in Columbia River and her husband, I

gather, made a proposal to take over some land covered in the reserve.

Why did they want the land? Because under the land was some very good

gravel. You can make a statement that that land was not fit for

agricultural purposes. The fact of the matter is that the land on top

of the gravel was very much fit for agricultural purposes, according to

our information.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However,

when you take two things away from an agricultural land commission —

firstly, the advice they can get through the secretary and, secondly,

their right to make decisions and give the cabinet the final decision —

then politics can very easily enter in. A powerful minister can go to

his colleagues and say: "Look, I've got a friend, and I owe him or her

a favour." Before you know it, these kinds of things happen. I don't

understand the psychology of this government. I understand that they're

incompetent. It strikes me that there could be no government ever

foisted upon a group of people such as the 2.5 million people we have

in this province that could have given a worse account of themselves.

Even

at that, you'd think they'd have enough brains and sense to see to it

that our agricultural land is conserved. So far, all we see is friends.

We see the president of the Socreds in Richmond now — and a real estate

person — pushing like crazy to get all the blueberry land along

Westminster highway. I drive past there every week, backwards and

forwards, waiting and watching for that land to go too. It's beautiful

agricultural land. I can remember being brought up as a kid in the

lower mainland. I can remember those farms on the delta. I can remember

old folks telling me that this land is the best-producing land in North

America. Where is it now? It's under

[ Page 5147 ]

asphalt

and concrete. For crying out loud, haven't we learned our lesson? When

will we learn our lesson? When are we going to say that enough is

enough? Tell me there isn't land to develop. Oh, yes, it's going to be

a little costly, but there's land that's not fit for agriculture on the

northeast corner of the lower mainland — Coquitlam, past Coronation

Park. One of the reasons that you've been talking about a hospital up

on Coronation Park in Port Moody is obviously because someday that

Crown land is going to be used for housing.

We started the

Mount Burke project, and what happened? This government put an end to

it. Mount Burke is not good for agriculture, but it's sure good for

building houses. No, Mr. Chairman, the developers wanted that flat

land. They want that rich land. It's easier to develop your sewers, put

in your wiring, and everything. There are six to an acre right now.

Yes, I understand that's happening in Richmond. Mr. Chairman, it's

deadly wrong. The minute we come to our senses, the better off we're

going to be.

Just on the side, that member talked about the

high cost of land and attributed that to agriculture. This government

has done more for the high cost of land. Every year they keep talking

about releasing Crown land to people for housing and never do in any

significant amounts. You're the biggest landholder in the province,

with 95 percent of all the land or thereabouts. Good heavens, they took

the Housing Corporation and destroyed it. They have done nothing except

to put the people of this province in absolute hock. It's an absolutely

shameful account of themselves.

Then we go on listening to

other speeches by other members. Do you know what I heard, Mr.

Chairman, the other day? I heard the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) get

up and do a 30-minute stretch on white land claims. The racist

overtones, undertones and every other kind of tones were.... If that

wasn't the most inane and stupid thing that I've every heard in my

life, I'd like to know what is. Return to the people the freedom they

once enjoyed. That's what he was suggesting — return to all the people

all over this province the right to break up your land into tiny lots

and sell them for housing.

MR. HALL: And carry three guns.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, and carry three guns. We could put ourselves in absolute jeopardy

if we begin to listen to those kinds of remarks from the members on

that side. It really worries me. They've probably got government for

another year or two. They sure haven't got it for any longer than that.

In that time and given their present record, they're going to destroy a

lot more agricultural land. Let it go. This is a travesty. It's utterly

tragic. Where did they take their advice? When the minister stood up, I

expected him to admonish the member for Omineca. I expected him to say

that the white land claim is the most specious argument ever delivered.

We have had more white people in this province become immensely wealthy

by the bad development of land than you can shake a stick at.

Some farmers have been inconvenienced, but, good lord, just because of the

fact that some farmers have been inconvenienced, are we to turn around and say:

"Okay, for ever and a day we're going to lose all this — much more

land"? What you have to do is see to it that those farmers are given an

opportunity to live a productive life on the land. Yes, we consumers are going

to have to pay more, and so we should — of course we should, and we must — but

we must conserve that land at any cost. I don't want to take that land.

I want people to own that land. I want farmers to own that land. I want farmers

to develop that land for agricultural purposes — and more of it.

Marketing?

Sure, give the minister all the help he needs. But the area that has to

be absolutely assured is that farmers are given an opportunity to get a

good price, and if the government has to involve itself in that, so be

it. Any government that can spend $1 billion in downtown Vancouver on a

monument to the Premier, B.C. Place, can piddle away other millions on

Transpo '86, millions more on convention centres, and millions more on

this, this and this, can spend a few dollars to keep the farmers'

income at a level that will keep our farmers active and growing. We

have to make it a viable industry — not for ourselves, because for the

next few years we can import. But there will be a day — don't forget

that California is being irresponsible with the utilization 'of its

land, and other areas are too — when we will have to be increasingly

self-sufficient. When that day presents itself, if we're not ready

we're not going to suffer, but our kids, their kids and future

generations will.

This is an absolutely beautiful province

in which to live. It's a place that people should be able to live for

generations to come. However, they can't if they can't be fed. For

heaven's sake, let's not become a Third World province just because of

ridiculous, ignorant advice.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Chairman. I mentioned earlier, in response to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), that there are two things with the

agricultural land reserve that come to the fore in every decision that

is made regarding agricultural land. These are: (1) it's political;

(2) it's emotional. You've just seen a beautiful example of a member

playing political games with the agricultural land reserve, and he

knows full well what he's doing. He'll say anything at all, make any

statement he wants, get it in Hansard , hopefully get it in the

press, and send out all these statements he's made indicating that this

government at this time is not responsible to the agricultural

community.

You attacked the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

who stood up in his place as a member who is free to state his case for

his constituents. Not one of your members over there has the guts to do

it. Our member makes his point and makes it well. I told him so when he

made his statements in this House. He made his case. He said to me:

"Mr. Minister, we've got to look at those claims that are not viable

agricultural lands in this province and do something about them."

Mr.

Member, I'll hang you on your own petard, because no more than ten

minutes ago you said: "We acted in haste in the agricultural land

reserves. We had to act in haste." You said it. Mr. Member, and yet you

are quite prepared to be as political as you can in attacking the

government in its attempts to properly identify agricultural land in

this province. You have a field day in making that effort, and yet no

more than ten minutes ago you made the statement: "We acted in haste."

You'll live with those words, Mr. Member, because you did act in haste.

You moved quickly and you identified agricultural land that wasn't

agricultural land. You had two years to do something about it and you

didn't do anything about it.

We talk about the secretariat.

Well, one thing about the secretariat: there was no accountability. The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that they were able to make

their own decisions. I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I

[ Page 5148 ]

a politician feel that the politician is elected to make decisions and

not a group of bureaucrats that are not responsible to anyone.

have an appeal procedure that we brought into place, and the member for

New Westminster knows it full well. Let me just take a moment to

explain it so that it is in Hansard

to go along with his remarks. We changed the legislation on the appeal

procedure and allowed an individual who owns property in fee simple to

make application to the minister for leave to appeal to the Environment

and Land Use Committee on a decision that was made by the Agricultural

Land Commission that denied him the right to take the land out of the

agricultural land reserve. The old act said you applied to the Land

Commission to have land excluded. If they said no, the old act said —

that's the NDP act — that you could go back to that court that

theoretically judged you before and ask for leave to appeal. If you got

two members out of the five-man commission to give you the right to

appeal, you could go to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The

hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who was Minister of

Environment and responsible for the Land Commission at that time,

raised the question that you're going back to the same people who

judged you the first time to ask them for the right to appeal. He felt

in the carrying out of justice that if an individual wanted to apply to

appeal a decision he shouldn't go back to the same court that judged

him before. So he now had an option. He could go to the Land

Commission: if two members of the commission said, "We agree you should

go to a body with a broader mandate" — which was the Environment and

Land Use Committee — "and appeal this decision, " then he could go; or

he could go to the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land

Commission and ask for leave to appeal from the minister who was

responsible for the Land Commission. It gave him the opportunity to

appeal to that — you might say — higher court or court with a broader

mandate. Changing the act was to carry out what I call natural justice

instead of going back to the same court that judged you in the first

case.

In the Wenger case I just have to take a moment in

regard to the attack.... They do it all the time. They've attacked the

members for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie),

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). Yet in regard to

the Wenger case, if they took a moment to look at the file and the

order and letter that deals with that land that was proposed as a

gravel pit, the order indicated that we had to be subject to the

section of the Land Commission Act which dealt with soil conservation,

as the member for Cowichan-Malahat knows, and with the reclamation of

the land after the gravel was extracted. That was the order that was

passed, and the decision was placed with the Land Commission to design

a procedure or a program that would enable, if they could come to

agreement with the owners, the extraction of gravel and then the

reclamation of the land back to agricultural purposes.

Just

to quote a few things that we're dealing with, what conditions could be

put on there — conditions that ELUC would like to see applied? It would

like to see suitable buffering for adjacent properties, suitable

staging of gravel extraction, reclamation and dust control, suitable

contours to allow for future agricultural use, and full conservation of

topsoil. Are we concerned about agriculture? Yes, we're concerned about

agriculture, but we're also concerned about the economic activity that

would take place in that area if I could be worked and you had joint

use of the property, finally ending up with agricultural land as the

end result.

All these things were placed before the Land

Commission so they could make their decision. But interestingly enough,

the political member for New Westminster would never state that those

people who were involved in making those recommendations dealing with

the Wenger property were the chairman of ELUC — that's the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — myself and the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is the MLA for that area. You

politically attacked the man, indicating that he was going to do

something to get a favour for somebody, when he was involved in the

discussion and the final decision-making process that said if this can

be accomplished and we can preserve the agricultural land reserve then

it can proceed, but if not, it won't proceed. And that's exactly what

happened. In regard to how they would have to contour the land when

they extracted the gravel and when they had to reclaim the land, the

economics didn't work out, and as a result, the Land Commission could

not issue a permit for them to proceed.

I've stated the

comment I had down here about the member for Omineca, who talked about

the white land claims. But the member for New Westminster — and I took

down his words — said: "Some farmers have been inconvenienced." Now

that is the position that that party would take as government. Never

mind the individuals out there who have taken that raw land and tried

to develop it. Never mind if it's not agriculturally capable land.

Never mind that you put in an agricultural land reserve map that was

just dropped like a blanket, and that this land was not agricultural

land but it was in. So he's inconvenienced. That is how much they think

of the individual British Columbian. It's the state they're interested

in, not the individual opportunity in this province.

Mr.

Chairman, those are mainly the remarks I wanted to make in response to

the member for New Westminster, who made as I said earlier, a beautiful

political speech which evade all those issues but attempted to get

across that this government had no feel for or interest in agricultural

activity in this province. But he also knows that agricultural activity

in this province is on the upswing. When you look at statistics across

Canada, British Columbia is up front and leading in the development of

agricultural lands and in agricultural production.

But I

have to agree that I do have a responsibility, Mr. Member for New

Westminster, and that's to do everything in my power as Minister of

Agriculture and Food to make sure that we have a viable agricultural

industry in this province. One way of doing that is, of course, that

we've got to assist them in technology and in marketing of the product.

My staff and I are dedicated to that. Don't make statements, Mr.

Member, that this government isn't interested in agriculture.

Agriculture has moved far and fast in the past four years, and you're

fully aware of that.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman,

now we've been treated to the normal reply — no reply. I think that the

best reply we could probably have had would have been from the now

hot-liner, the former minister in charge of the Agricultural Land

Commission and former member of ELUC. Mr. Mair is now on record as

opposing practically everything that that minister represents. I'm not

going to give you a tedious rundown. I think pretty well everything

I've said is there for the record. If the minister wants to take that

record apart, let him.

[ Page

5149 ]

He says we did it in haste, and we shouldn't admit to doing it in

haste. That's the suggestion, of course. I suggest that when you do

something, you say what it was you did and describe it honestly. Mr.

Chairman, of course we did it in haste. Then he goes on to say that we

had two years to do something about it afterwards, and we did. We

worked hard with those regional districts — and it wasn't quite two

years — from some of which we got cooperation, from others we didn't.

They've had five and a half years, Mr. Chairman, and in that five and a

half years we've seen erosion of good land.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How do you know that? Where are your statistics?

MR. COCKE: How do I know that? The statistics are very much....

a matter of fact, I think we're going to keep these debates going for a

while, because I had statistics a year ago that we brought up in the

House about acres and acres of land that had been let go. I suggest

that if it were not for public opinion and the very fact that there was

a lot of publicity around a couple of other cases, they too would have

gone. "Oh," the minister says, "the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing and I were on a committee that decided that we would make it

very difficult for them to get that land out." Well, that was after the

fact, Mr. Chairman. That was after a hue and cry. I would suggest that

the newspapers had a very great influence in that particular situation.

However,

the one thing that I wanted to discuss just for a moment with that

minister, whose conception of our feeling with respect to the state and

vis-à-vis people.... Don't let that former Liberal, who now represents

the Socreds, who have expropriated more land through their B.C. Hydro

arm — impersonal, without a care or concern about people and where and

how they live.... Go up to the Arrow Lakes. Go up to that whole

Columbia River basin. Find out how the folks were handled. Then go on

up to the Peace River. What a crock.

That member says that I

had suggested that someone was inconvenienced. Of course people are

inconvenienced from time to time, unfortunately. With the fine-tuning

process that we put into play, it was up to the regional districts in

cooperation with the commission to get it in or out. What could we have

used at the time except the federal agricultural description?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Bob Williams had nothing to do with it. You're so uninformed. Dave

Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture from Nanaimo, was fully....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know nothing — any more than you're running the Socreds.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to

order. I wonder if all members of the House could return to vote 10.

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Omineca, who

uses the term "dictator," is probably the only one in this House

who really knows its meaning, so he should keep his trap shut when he's

describing any other person. I take it as an insult to a former member of this

House that that member should take that kind of....

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an insult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN. HON. MEMBER: I think he should withdraw that.

MR. COCKE: Madam Member, I would prefer that he didn't withdraw anything.

Mr.

Chairman, through you to this minister. I suggest that you get a little

bit stronger and put things together. His advice to us about why they

broke up the secretariat was absolutely worthless. He knows full

well.... I didn't suggest that the secretariat should be out there

making decisions. The secretariat should as one voice be advising the

Environment and Land Use Committee. That's what they were set up to do

— not to make decisions, but to advise their body that they were

responsible to. Of course politicians have to make the last decisions.

That's what we're here for, and that's particularly what the ministers,

once they are appointed. are here for. When you break up a group who

have all the avenues funnelling in — the environmental aspects, the

agricultural aspects, etc. — to one secretariat. they can come with a

much stronger and better advised voice to advise the Environment and

Land Use Committee.

So I suggest to you that there's not a

lot of use discussing this question with that minister or this

government. They find themselves in terrible trouble. The reason

they're in such dire straits is because they haven't been listening.

Probably the only one that will get back here will be the member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). That was a real gerrymander, but

good luck to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, hon.

members, it would occur to the Chair that we have — this has happened

from both sides of the House — infringed or begun to discuss questions

that might more properly come under the votes of a minister whose vote

is not before us. If at this time we could return to vote 10, the

committee would be well served.

MS. SANFORD: During

question period today, I raised a question with the minister with

respect to the monitoring of the sale of agricultural land to absentee

foreigners that he apparently committed himself to last year. I would

like to pose some specific questions to the minister. I hope I have his

attention, because these are rather brief, specific types of questions.

Could

the minister advise the House what form that monitoring is taking?

Could he advise whether or not it is part of the monitoring program

that was undertaken by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing? Could

he advise whether or not the monitoring program that is taking place

about the sale of agricultural land to absentee foreigners is related

to the size of the parcels of land or whether it just involves the

number of sales that are taking place" If the minister could answer

those specific questions, then I would like to proceed on this issue,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm somewhat disappointed

that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has left the chamber.

As a matter of fact, I'm disappointed that only four of the

[ Page 5150 ]

opposition members are in their seats for this very important debate.

The

member for New Westminster made a couple of comments that I'd like to

respond to. The member said that the Canada Land Inventory study was by

the federal government. I think that it would be only fair, Mr.

Chairman, to have it in the record that this study was a joint

provincial/federal venture under the Social Credit government in those

days. He also said that he wants people to own their own land. I'd like

to draw that member's attention to their own convention in 1967, if I

may quote a portion that says: "Lease and not sell land for

agricultural purposes to present or future owners or other bona fide

farmers." Now that, in my opinion, does not say that they want people

to own their own land. Then again in 1971 the New Democratic Party

convention went on record again as saying: "When land suitable to

agriculture is offered for sale, the NDP government will consider the

purchase of such land to be leased for continued agricultural

purposes." I think that that should put to rest the statement that he

has made, which is really misleading, that they want to see people own

their own land. One of the great fears when the freeze first came in

was of the owners of land losing that opportunity to own and it all

failing into the hands of the state.

I have had a lifetime

in agriculture, and I think I know a few things about farming. I also

understand some of the hardships that this freeze — the way it was

applied and administered by them — can bring on a farmer. I would like

to tell the House that I think it's time that they stopped playing

politics with the agricultural land reserve. And that's all it has

been. They have seen an opportunity here to latch on to something that

is dear to the hearts of many people and blow it up for all they're

worth for political purposes and for their own political gain.

could refer to a number of cases where this is quite obvious, but the

one in particular I'd like to put on the record is one close to my own

home, and it's known as the Stirling farm. Prior to any change taking

place on that farm, there used to be great demonstrations taking place

around Chilliwack by the Save the Farmland group, actually a group

motivated by the NDP for political purposes again. They were out

parading — as a matter of fact, the person nominated to run against me

in the next election was one of the leaders of these groups that would

picket — and creating all sorts of problems anytime anything happened

in the agricultural land reserve in Chilliwack.

Mr. Chairman, there is a farm in Matsqui — the oldest farm in Matsqui, a very

fine farm with good soil qualities. The owner of that farm found himself locked

into the freeze; but he got around it through some of his connections in the

NDP by getting permission to build homes on the farm within the reserve. No

one can kid me that this is a case of preserving farmland for the original purpose

it was intended for: that is, to produce food. But that incident alone proves

to me that their program was not to preserve our ability to feed ourselves,

but rather to get the control of the land in the hands of the government. That

farm is now broken up; it has homes on it, and they're still building homes

on it, but it is in the reserve.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I believe it, because it's across the fence from me.

Mr. Chairman, I called the president of the Save the Farmland group at the

time and said: "We have a situation going on down here that I think you

should look at." He said: "What is it?" I explained it all, and

he said: "We know all about it, but it's out of our area; we don't

go that far." But it so happened that they were about 9 or 18 miles farther

west shortly after. They can't go around kidding the public or trying to

kid anyone at all that they're sincere in all of this nonsense that they

create whenever anything happens in the agricultural land reserve.

I'd

like to make a few suggestions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the

reserve, because I have been close to it for many years and I see some

of the faults. One of the great faults, of course, was the mapping

originally done from the air and put down, and anything that fell

within that was preserved. I think that if we're going to tell people

that they're locked into their land, then we must be able to prove to

them that they can make a living on that land. It is with this in mind

that I would like to suggest to our minister that the province be split

up into regions based on agricultural suitability in order to arrive at

minimum parcel size. We know that at the moment the minimum parcel size

to be retained is two acres. I'd like to put any one of those members

across there on two and a half or three acres of land and tell them to

make a living, because it's not possible at all. It creates a terrible

hardship. I am suggesting that we should be dividing the province up

into regions based on agricultural capability. We know that certain

parts of the province are only suitable for grain or for grazing

purposes. We have other areas suitable for tree-fruit production. We

have other areas ideally suited to mixed farming. We have my own area

which is ideally suited to small fruit, vegetables, dairying, poultry

and so forth.

Once that is determined, I suggest that we

should make a study of each of those functions to determine the minimum

parcel size required to run a viable unit. We know that if you're going

to be producing food on a farm, you have to do it mechanically. We

cannot afford to farm today like we used to many years ago. Labour

costs are too high, so it's got to be mechanical. Therefore we must

take into consideration the necessary high investment in equipment,

relate that to the production that would be required, and relate that

to the acreage required to produce that production. I'm saying that the

blanket approach of a minimum parcel size of two acres and above must

be retained, but we must look at the province in regions and determine

just what the capabilities are.

I would also like to go on

record as saying, as I've said many times, that my government and I are

very supportive of preserving our ability to feed ourselves. I think

that this is where you people lose sight of the whole business of food

production, because you cannot continue to see what we have established

in 1973 or 1974 as what's going to be suitable in years to come.

Really, the whole purpose of preserving agricultural land is not to

preserve land per se, but to preserve our ability to feed ourselves

into the unforeseeable future.

We know that any province or

country that is self-sufficient in food is economically and politically

sound, and we intend to preserve that. But we also know that we have a

lot of small parcel sizes out there that are too small for many

functions. I'm thinking mainly of root crops. But then, of course, we

have the situation where you could say that possibly a four- or

five-acre parcel of land could be used for poultry production. We have

a problem there because we have our marketing board schemes in place

which restrict people to certain quota allocations and so forth.

Therefore it's

[ Page

5151 ]

not possible to just turn around and buy a four- or

five- acre parcel of land and say, "Well, I can't afford to produce

berries or vegetables on it or graze cattle, but I'll raise poultry,"

because that is no longer possible under our marketing schemes. I would

think that the other area of production could be hog production. There

is no restriction there as far as getting into it is concerned, but we

know that we have severe pollution restrictions.

When you

stop to think of all these things, it is absolute nonsense that we

should be telling those people who are locked into those non-viable

parcels of land that they must stay there and farm them. I was rather

pleased when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said

that he would support the removal of agricultural land provided there

was a justifiable need. As I understand the meaning of "justifiable,"

that means defendable.

MR. MACDONALD: Were you there? That's hearsay.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, the member who is calling "hearsay" will no doubt have an

opportunity to get on his feet and state that he did not say that he

would support the removal of land from the the agricultural land

reserve if it was justifiable. I was rather pleased to hear that, and

I'll be disappointed if he can stand on his feet when I'm finished and

deny that he said that for the record.

think it is time we put to rest this political game that is played by

the NDP in the administration of our Agricultural Land Commission and

the preservation of the agricultural land reserve. We know tha t their policy is

to use various vehicles to further socialize Canada, such as schools,

labour unions, cooperatives and so forth. Now they've latched onto the

land issue, and I think it's time that stopped.

We could

talk about the decisions they made on Tilbury Island. What do you have

to say about that? I hope someone will get up and defend that decision.

Those are very annoying developments that have taken place, not only

for me as a politician but also for me when I was farming. I can assure

you, when I see some of the decisions that you people allowed to be

made, and then when you come along and tell us that we're doing

terrible things to our land, when we know we have very little

difference in acreage within the reserve today compared to what was

there when we took over. I think it's absolutely disgusting that this

sort of nonsense should continue.

I'm recommending very

strongly to our Minister of Agriculture and Food that a very serious

look be taken towards the viability of that land that must be retained

in the reserve. Otherwise, we're kidding ourselves. Not only are we

kidding ourselves, but we're creating terrible hardships out there in

the field. I can recall the days when I would see families who were

unable to make ends meet having to leave their farms and lose them

because it was costing more to produce than what they were getting.

Then,

of course, we have the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who

mentioned in one of his speeches how some farms weren't self-sufficient

in feed. It's a little late to get back on that one, but he obviously

has a lot to learn about farming in our province.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Before you start blowing your whistle for the farmer, you'd better learn the time.

Having

been a farmer for a number of years and involved in it all mv life,

having been close to a year on the Land Commission and now being on the

political side, I think it is time we quit playing games. It is time we

took a constructive look towards the whole program. It's time we

recognized the fact that the purpose of this act was not to control

people on their land, which you people would like to do.

MR. LEA: We want it all.

MR. RITCHIE:

Yes. I have your number, and that's why I can speak as I do. I've been

watching it closely and, as I say, I have watched it from the various

sides, and I think it is time we made some dramatic changes in this

thing and based our retention of land and parcel size in the reserve

oil its ability to produce — on its viability. That must be one

consideration.

I think the comment made by our minister in

respect to the gravel pit is all excellent one. We have many parcels of

land throughout this province that could be improved for agricultural

purposes if they were taken down, the gravel stripped away and the

topsoil replaced. I think you would find, if you really studied it,

that we have much land in this province that could be enhanced if the

terrain was changed through such a measure as was talked about here.

closing, I think that one of the other things they seem to forget is

that this has to be a total approach it has to be a balanced approach.

Don't forget that the success of the farmer and agriculture in this

province is not going to be based oil the amount of land that can be

controlled through the reserve, but rather their success is going to be

based on the population growth. The greater the population growth we

experience in this province, the more success the farmer will have. We

have experienced this, and last year's immigration figures for the

farmer have shown their market enlarged quite substantially because of

more people coming into this province. We must keep in mind that there

has to be proper balance. There has to be land made available for

residential purposes. Once you get that, then you're required to

produce jobs, and land has to be made available for industrial and

commercial development. It's got to be a balanced approach. I think

that it's time that we looked at it that way and considered it from the

standpoint of the farmer and particularly those who are locked into

non-viable units.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, seated in the gallery are some special guests. They're

students from the Vancouver Community College, King Edward Campus.

They're attending special classes there on adult upgrading courses. In

fact, a number of them are native students from the Outreach classes

located at the Musqueam reserve, the Native Adult Education Centre and

the Native Counselling and Referral Drop-in Centre. They're here with

their teacher, Barbara Ash. I think we should welcome them all.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman. I was hoping by this time that the minister would have

had some information with respect to those studies. Just before he

gives that information, I'm just amazed this afternoon at the various

ways in which the back bench on the government side can tell us they

just can't wait to get that land out of the agricultural land reserve.

[ Page 5152 ]

The

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was not very subtle. He was quite

open in his approach that it's nonsense to keep this agricultural land

in any kind of reserve; we've got lots of agricultural land, enough to

feed all of North America; for heaven's sake, let's build houses on it.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not very subtle either. He can't

wait to get rid of all that agricultural land and get it taken out.

was interested in the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie),

who, it seems to me, should know better. As a member of the former Land

Commission, as a farmer himself, as someone who must recognize the

value of farmland....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He knows about turkey quotas, does he?

Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that the member for Central Fraser Valley is

saying virtually the same thing, only he's a little more subtle about

it. He is a little more subtle about taking vast areas out from the

agricultural land reserve. It's fascinating to me to watch and listen

to all of these people on the government side who just wish they could

find some way of getting all that agricultural land out of the reserve

so it can be developed by developers. They can't wait, Mr. Chairman.

It's been very obvious this afternoon. I'll give the minister an

opportunity now to answer those questions that I posed earlier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Since my name has been bandied around here a little bit this afternoon

about the Land Commission and the opposition I put up to that bill when

it was brought into the House, I thought it might be appropriate that I

talk a little bit about the agricultural land reserve and the

commission. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it amazes me that that

member for Comox, who just took her seat, believes that no individual

in British Columbia should own land and that it should all be owned by

the state. That's the policy of the party that she represents. They do

not believe in private ownership of land. She has stated it just

recently; the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) stated it; others over

there have stated it. They believe in a communist state where the state

owns all of the land. That's exactly what they were going to do when

they brought in the original bill. Had it not been for the opposition

of the day, that's exactly what would have happened. No individual in

British Columbia would have had any rights, and that's their policy

today. They're trying to cloud it over by saying that we're trying to

get all the land out of the ALR, which is a bunch of hogwash. Just

because the wife of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is

managing a by-election campaign.... She probably wrote the speech for

him when he was talking about the ALR.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the vote, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, I'm talking about the preservation of farmland. The member for New

Westminster had to make that little speech, which was a bunch of

hogwash — absolute hogwash! Such hogwash I've never seen in this

chamber before. When they brought in the ALR, they didn't bring it in

to preserve agricultural land. They brought it in as their great,

overall plot to be a....

AN HON. MEMBER: To be a landlord.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No. Well, to be a landlord — yes, they were going to own all the land.

But they wanted to be the chief architects. They wanted all the zoning

done by this group of bureaucrats and they would twist the dials on the

control. That's exactly what it was. Mr. Chairman, I must remind the

House and all the great people of British Columbia once again that that

original bill gave nobody any right of appeal to anybody. The original

bill brought in by that socialist government when they were government

gave nobody any right of appeal. They could designate the land. They

could do anything they wanted to. They took a big, broad brush and put

rock piles in it, gravel pits in it, marshes in it and forests in it.

They put everything in the ALR. Then they talk about us taking land out

of the ALR. When they were government, what did they do?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

think it's time we reminded the House and the people of British

Columbia just how fictitious that group on the other side is. After

bringing in their own act when they were government, what did they do?

They took out of the agricultural land reserve by a dictum that they

brought in, contravening their own bill that they had brought in, some

of the best agricultural land in the province out of the act. That was

less than two years after they'd brought in the act. It grieves me that

these people can peddle such hogwash in this chamber. That's exactly

what it is.

What did they do up in the great Peace River

country? Before the ink was dry on the bill they brought in, they

allowed B.C. Hydro to take out a great big strip of the best farming

area to build a big building and yard. They took it out. What did they

do with Tilbury Island, one of the best tracts of agricultural land in

the province? The then Minister of Economic Development said: "Oh, we

want that for industry. We'll take it out." That was before the ink was

dry on the act that they brought in.

Mr. Chairman, if I were

allowed, I'd tell you and the people of British Columbia exactly what

kind of people they are on the other side of the House. But

parliamentary tradition will not allow me to do that. I do want to tell

you that there is example after example in this province, where before

the ink was dry on the very act that they brought in to preserve

agricultural land, they were snapping it out by the hundreds of

thousands of acres. They were taking out the best agricultural land in

this province before the ink was dry. Yet they stand up in this

Legislature with the big circles around their heads. Pious! The people

of this province should recognize that group over there for what they

are. They are political politicians of the worst type and they're not

completely truthful with the people of this province.

MR. HALL:

I think first of all that the House perhaps should sympathize with the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), who just had the misfortune to introduce some guests from a

community college in the gallery today and witnessed a couple of

speeches that indicated, I think, the paucity of content from the

government side.

We had the example from Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who believes that instruments for the propagation

of socialism in this province are the schools, the credit unions and

the trade unions. We have a minister of the Crown who says that

thousands of acres were taken out of the ALR, when

[ Page 5153 ]

the

figures from his own department show that never has the figure of one

thousand acres ever been exceeded since the act was passed, except when

they were in government. Mr. Chairman, when the member for Central

Fraser Valley looks under the bed each night, he's not looking for

dust. I'll tell you what he sees. He sees the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) looking in the other side. If he wasn't so

pathetic, it would be comical.

We may have taken land out of

the land reserve because of agreements made and because of the plans

that were being laid by the regional districts — plans that were made

for the people of British Columbia for hydro. They were plans that were

made for industrial development, which they're now claiming credit for

every Saturday and Sunday afternoon in prime time television. Moving

pictures of people who voted against the economic development

corporation are shown on those advertisements on Saturday and Sunday

afternoons. People who voted against the acts of the government of

1972-75 are now wallowing in self-adulation and self-praise for the

economic development corporation on the very land that that minister's

just tried to excoriate us about. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter

is that in all of the instances of land taken out of the agricultural

land reserve that the minister tried to suggest to us, not one piece of

land was taken out of the agricultural land reserve for a New

Democratic Party supporter, and they can't say that for Social Credit.

To get land out of the agricultural land reserve these days, you've got

to be a Socred; if you're not a Socred, you've got to know a Socred —

and that's the fact. With all the wriggling and all the messing around

you want to do, you can't get over the fact you've got Gloucester,

you've got Spetifore and you've got the gravel pit. You live with it

Mr. Minister. Shame on you! That's the story of the agricultural land

reserve, and you can't get away from that. Every single application has

been surrounded by Socreds, ex-Socreds, lawyers, ex-Attorneys-General,

ex-everything, presidents of the Social Credit Party — it's a joke.

I'll tell you, when I go to Kamloops, Mr. Chairman, I shall be telling

this story frequently.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'm going to go and straighten them out because you'll mess it up.

MR. HALL:

I can say everything I've said inside the House outside the House,

which is a lot more than I can say for some people on the other side of

this House.

Mr. Chairman, now that we've got that out of the

way, I've got a question for the minister. I would like to ask him if

he could tell me of the current status of any applications that may be

before him for removal — either in or out — from the agricultural land

reserve of the Grauer farm — it may be that the Chairman could ask this

question better than I can — which is adjacent to the Spetifore

property. The Grauer farm is adjacent to the 523 acres which we've had

a great deal of discussion about, and I wondered if the minister can

tell me if the 31 0-acre former Grauer farm — south of Highway 17. east

of Point Roberts Road — is at the moment being considered by any of the

bodies supervised by the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, regarding the application of the Grauer farm, I have no

knowledge of where it is in the system. If it's before the Agricultural

Land Commission, they will be working on it and making a decision, If

it's an application that is subject to an appeal procedure, it will

proceed in the normal manner. To my knowledge, I can't respond to where

it is in the system, Mr. Member. I can get that information for you, if

you like.

MR. HALL: If the minister wouldn't mind, I

would appreciate that. The point I'm trying to make, and which I think

this side is trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is made well, I think, by

the correspondence I'm sure the minister has seen, that emanated over a

year ago from a large group of people who cannot be described by even

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) or his colleague from Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) as

being socialist, and that is the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the

Consumers Association of Canada. the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, the

Federation of B.C. Naturalists, the B.C. Women's Institute, the

Planning, Institute of B.C. and the United Church of Canada. Now I

suppose if you think that schools, trade unions and credit unions are

the basis of the terrible plot that is going on, you can think

anything. The point is — and the opinion that they express, one which

is shared by most people — is that the amendments regarding the appeal

procedures that this government saw fit to pass, propose or push

through the House are now looked upon in this way: that because they

allow appeals directly to the cabinet, they, in effect, mean that the

first, second or third steps in the process are just that: they're

steps in the process that have to be gone through before you get to

cabinet. In other words it's similar to labour legislation. If you

propose a complicated series of events that will eventually lead to a

final determination by somebody or other, what happens in the case of

dispute is that you just simply go through those steps as fast as

possible.

What the Institute of Agrologists and those other

groups that I've mentioned fear is that the appearance before the

Agricultural Land Commission is now only a necessary step on the way to

an appeal to the politicians in Victoria. That is the point we're

trying to make. The point we're trying to make and prove is that the

number of acres that have now escalated from what had previously been

an acceptable figure, even with fine-tuning and all those other

expressions the minister has used, is now no longer acceptable. The

amount through the years since the agricultural land reserve was set in

operation has, as of the last year of record, reached over 1,200 acres.

You can see that those people who wish to take land out of the land

reserve for developmental purposes are obviously looking upon their

appearance before the agricultural land reserve as just a step in a

chain of events. It's just a thing to be got rid of as fast as

possible; they don't really care what the result is; it's just a step

in the process.

That's the point of view that's being

expressed forcibly by this side. I don't think that it's exaggerating

one little bit to say that a province that can't feed itself but which

is going to allow its farmland and potential agricultural production to

be eliminated is placing itself in a ridiculously unsafe position from

a security point of view. I'm not talking about wars: I'm talking about

economic security. That is the answer that the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) is seeking. Somebody should just take him to one side and

whisper it to him one day. That's what's wrong with his argument. A

country that can't feed itself is a country that can't look after

itself. One has only to travel widely — as do most cabinet members, I'm

sure — to know the truth of that.

I would appreciate it if the minister will find out that information about the Grauer farm. As I pointed out, what

[ Page 5154 ]

has

gone wrong with the appeal procedure is that they have now made it just

the last step in a chain of events, and nobody really cares any more

about the Agricultural Land Commission.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, I guess we can debate this on and off for the next several days.

The member over there knows full well that the legislation, as it was

written originally, said to an individual who applied to the Land

Commission and who was turned down: "You have the right of appeal, but

you must go back to the court that judged you and denied you and ask

for permission to appeal it to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

It's their legislation." The Minister of Environment at the time, the

member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), amended the act to allow that

system to proceed in the same manner, with one exception, because he

was concerned about natural justice being done. He said that in going

to the Agricultural Land Commission and going through the court that

has already judged you, there should be an avenue where the minister

responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission would be able to

determine whether or not the individual had sufficient evidence which

would allow the right of appeal. That's natural justice, Mr. Member. If

you're going to argue that point, you're saying to those owners of land

out there that it's locked into the agricultural land reserve and that

they don't have the same rights as other people who are attempting to

appeal a decision.

I just want to make a comment in regard

to the acreage that has been excluded from the agricultural land

reserve since its inception. As I and some of my colleagues have

mentioned here today, it's interesting to hear the political rhetoric

from across the way in regard to the political decisions made by this

government with regard to agricultural land exclusion.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you some figures: requested by

municipalities and regional districts, lands that have been excluded —

the request has been examined and has been recommended by the

Agricultural Land Commission — totalled 93,040 acres since inception —

from 1973 to 1980 when the last Land Commission annual report came out;

98.5 percent of the land excl