1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

School Amendment Act. Mrs. Dailly –– 2599

Location of offices of Lands, Parks and Housing ministry. Hon. Mr. Chabot re plies 2600

Social Credit caucus meeting with Automotive Retailers Association. Mr. Hall –– 2600

Suspended solids disposal regulations. Mr. Passarell –– 2600

Maplewood Poultry and Willowbrook Meats in receivership. Mrs. Wallace –– 2600

Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Hanson –– 2601

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Barrett –– 2601

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2606

Mr. Cocke –– 2607

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2610

Mr. Skelly –– 2610

Mr. Mussallem –– 2613

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2615

Ms. Brown –– 2616

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2619

Mr. Barber –– 2620

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2624

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BRUMMET:

I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the

House a group visiting from Fort Nelson Secondary School in my riding.

They are 16 students from Mr. Larsen's grade 11 social studies class,

who flew from Fort Nelson to Prince George, came down by B.C. Rail,

travelled by bus and ferry — the whole works — and will be flying back.

They are getting a good look at the province, to see how the rest of

the province appreciates what the Peace River country does to keep them

financially alive. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery is a young man who in 1968 had the

opportunity to change the course of history in this country and blew

it. That was the year that he ran as the NDP candidate against Robert

Stanfield, when he led the Conservatives to government. Nonetheless, we

never held that against him. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming

my brother, Gus Wedderburn, from Nova Scotia, who is visiting us for a

few days.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like the members

to welcome Bishop Fergus O'Grady, who is a resident in the Prince

George area. Bishop O'Grady started at Mission in 1936, the year I was

born, and since that time he has been in Kamloops, Williams Lake and

Prince George. He is known to many members on both sides of the House.

He is presently looking after the Roman Catholic episcopal corporation

of Prince Rupert which covers the northern part of our province. Of

particular interest are the years and years he has spent in assisting

the native population in our province. I would like the House to give

him a special welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the

gallery today we have some visitors from Retalhuleu, Guatemala. This

community is sister city to the city of Penticton, and the people in

the gallery today have been guests of the chamber of commerce of the

city of Penticton and the city council. The leader of their group is

Horacio Alejos, who has acted as their interpreter. With Horacio are

his mother, his father, Jorge Alejos, a former mayor and congressman in

Guatemala, Mr. and Mrs. Rudy Herman and Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Bruni.

Accompanying them from the city of Penticton are Hawley and Mitz

Fugeta, who have been active as their hosts while they've been in

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to bid them a special

welcome today on their visit to Victoria.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

May I inform you that in the gallery today are good friends and

long-time residents of the Dewdney area, who are presently in Maple

Ridge, Mr. and Mrs. Olund. I ask you to make them welcome.

addition, we have a group of air cadets from the Mission area on a

citizenship training and Canadian Armed Forces familiarization trip.

With them are the company officers, Captain Carl P. Barrett, Second

Lieutenant Glen Armstrong and Officer Cadet Shirley Barrett. I ask you

to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response

to a request from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I'm tabling

the complete document from which I quoted during my estimates, which is

a

summary of the proceedings in the open session of the

federal-provincial conference of first ministers. The remainder of the

document is a

summary of the closed session of the same meeting, which

is of a confidential nature and isn't part of the tabling.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have two or three questions to do with the same subject,

and the questions revolve around another example of bungling by the

government when it comes to the preparation of legislation.

question to the Minister of Education is to do with the latest mistake

made by this government in legislation. Under the terms of Bill 20, the

School Act has been amended. As the result of the mistake that was made

in an amendment to the School Act, it appears that all school trustees

in this province have been accidentally reduced to a one-year term in

office. My first question is: has the government, through the Minister

of Education, decided that every school trustee in this province shall

now be elected for a one-year term only instead of the two years which

they asked for and were given in legislation in the past?

second question is: why was Bill 20 the only bill not to be given royal

assent in the House last week? Can the minister confirm that this is

because one of his public servants discovered the latest error of

government bungling in legislation and persuaded the cabinet to

withdraw the bill from royal assent?

Mr. Speaker, my final question is: would the Minister of Education and perhaps

the government that he represents like some assistance from another source in

drafting legislation?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that instead of the speech I might have

had an offer from the member to assist in some corrective process.

Also, it's very tempting to gloat when these things happen.

can assure the member that the bill was not assented to because I

learned that there appeared to be an error by the parliamentary

draftsman in not deleting the words "next calendar year,'' which might

cause the bill to have the effect the member says: that trustees,

instead of holding office for two years, as they had thought, would

only hold office for one year.

What I was going to propose

today to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is not

here, is that he join with me in discharging third reading of the bill.

The bill was not assented to for that reason, because it seemed to me

that the up-front thing to do is to bring the bill back, discharge

third reading and have it recommitted with a technical amendment, which

I propose to do before the House.

I thank the member for raising the matter. We were aware of it, and it will be taken care of.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I just have a supplementary question. I wonder if the

government would consider appointing a lawyer as Minister of Education.

[ Page 2600 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

LOCATION OF OFFICES OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING MINISTRY

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 8, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) stated and asked as follows: "At present the regional office

of Lands, Parks and Housing comprises about 4 persons in Cranbrook and

11 persons from the old regional Ministry of Lands in Nelson. It has

been reported that there has been a decision to move the 11 staff

people over to Cranbrook. Could the minister tell me if a decision has

been made to move the regional Lands people from Nelson to Cranbrook?"

The

Cranbrook regional office has 6 permanent employees and not 4, as

stated by the member. In order to consolidate the regional function of

Lands, Parks and Housing, it is necessary to move 6 of the permanent

positions from Nelson to Cranbrook, and not 11, as stated by the member.

order to achieve our objective of consolidating the regional function

in one office, it became a matter of determining whether 6 employees

were to move from Cranbrook to Nelson or whether the 6 employees

involved in the regional function were to be moved from Nelson to

Cranbrook. It was determined that the most appropriate method of

proceeding was to move the employees from Nelson to Cranbrook, as the

major activity of Lands, Parks and Housing, which are Crown land

agreements, 215.A agreements, interim financing, rural development,

senior citizens' housing, land applications and regional adjudications

were in the East Kootenay.

I might say at this time that our

regional office in Cranbrook which was opened in April 1975 was

approved and announced by the former housing minister, the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). He recognized in 1975 the need for a

presence in Cranbrook. As previously indicated, Cranbrook is now and

will continue to be our major activity centre. One of the primary

factors influencing this decision was the matter of transportation and

communication within the region. The Cranbrook location will involve

less travel and easier access to all centres of the region. While

Nelson is a centre for Environment, Forests and Highways, in fact the

meetings of resource agencies vary between the East and West Kootenays.

My ministry has and will continue to have full participation in this

inter-agency work. We will continue to maintain our district office in

Nelson, which will continue to give this ministry a presence in that

community. While I recognize the inconvenience this might cause some

employees, the same inconvenience would have occurred regardless of the

centre selected.

SOCIAL CREDIT CAUCUS MEETING WITH

AUTOMOTIVE RETAILERS ASSOCIATION

MR. HALL: My

question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as

the director of ICBC. I wonder if the minister could advise the House

if he attended a meeting of the Social Credit caucus or a committee of

that caucus called to meet representatives of the Automotive Retailers

Association on May 15 last.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of what is dealt with in the Social Credit caucus is private.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I'll repeat the question. I didn't ask what was dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I asked him if he attended the meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not your business.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm being instructed as to the correctness of my questions

by the members opposite. I'm taking my rules from you. Is that correct?

The

minister appears to have lost his memory as to whether or not he

attended that meeting. Did the minister announce at that meeting that

he was attending that meeting under protest?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, my response to the member's question is simply this: what

happens in the Social Credit caucus and who we meet with or who we do

not meet with is our business and not the opposition's.

MR. HALL:

In view of the fact that the minister informed that meeting that he was

attending that meeting under protest, I wonder how the minister can

reconcile the statement he made on Thursday, saying that his door was

open to everybody who can come to talk to him about ICBC problems, with

his actions when he was supposed to meet with members of the ARA on May

15 and entered that meeting under protest.

SUSPENDED SOLIDS

DISPOSAL REGULATIONS

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question of the Minister of Environment. The federal Minister of

Fisheries has exempted the Amax mines project at Kitsault from the

suspended solids disposal regulations through an order-in-council. The

provincial pollution control guidelines for suspended solids are

150,000 times more permissive than the federal fisheries. What steps

has the minister taken to prevent Amax mines from dumping vast

quantities of suspended solids into the fishing grounds of Kitsault Arm?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a new question of the Minister of Environment. What steps has

the minister taken to bring the pollution control branch restrictions

on suspended solids in line with the federal fisheries regulations?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That is a matter involving government policy, Mr. Speaker.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY AND

WILLOWBROOK MEATS IN RECEIVERSHIP

MRS. WALLACE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is

aware, of course, that Maplewood Poultry has gone into receivership.

Cheques issued to Island producers just prior to receivership have not

been honoured by the banks. The minister offered some funding to

Maplewood to keep it operating which was not

[ Page 2601 ]

accepted. Is he prepared to make those funds available directly to assist the producers who have had NSF cheques issued?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the cheques that have not been honoured,

but, that being the case, it would probably be a matter for the

receiver that has been placed in charge of Maplewood to deal with those

outstanding items.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sure that the

minister is aware that when a company goes into receivership there is a

long time delay before a settlement. Some of the Island producers are

out-of-pocket as much as $30,000. Inasmuch as most of that money is

owed to cover the cost of the feed and the chicks, is the minister

prepared to at least refund the interest on money that they will have

to borrow to remain operative, or is he simply going to sit idly by

while they go into bankruptcy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure whether the member is talking about the Sooke

plant specifically or the total Maplewood operation, which includes

Clearbrook. I think she is talking about Sooke. The Sooke plant, of

course, has now been purchased by Pan Ready Poultry, and I am not aware

of whether or not they've accepted all accounts payable — all

liabilities in the transaction between the purchaser and the vendor. I

assume they probably have, considering the fact that Pan Ready is a

producers' co-op. I would think that that co-op would honour those

outstanding obligations once the books had been transferred.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm talking about people in my constituency who are faced with debts for feed and chicks and NSF cheques.

similar situation has occurred in the swine industry in the valley, as

I'm sure the minister is aware. The Willowbrook processing plant went

into receivership and the bank is now operating it, but those cheques

that were issued prior to May 1 have not been honoured. Is the minister

prepared to take any action there to assist those swine producers?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Again, the member is commenting on something that I'm not aware of. I

would have to say that in the case where a company has gone into

receivership those are outstanding liabilities. The matter is quite

often handled by the receiver; but I have difficulty in looking at the

government stepping in in such situations, because, as I'm sure members

opposite know, there are many companies that go into receivership. You

are setting quite a precedent if you are going to start picking up all

the obligations of companies that go into receivership.

GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm

informed that responsibility for the Glenshiel Hotel has been

transferred to your ministry. At the moment there are 26 vacant suites

out of 80 in the Glenshiel. It is virtually impossible to find rental

accommodation in Victoria, particularly for senior citizens. Has the

minister decided to lift the ban on new tenants going into the

Glenshiel Hotel so that people can find a place to live?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I believe the member is a little premature in asking me the question.

MR. HANSON:

I've been advised by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) that jurisdiction has been transferred to your ministry,

and meetings have been held with the B.C. Housing Management

Commission. Have you decided to put the Glenshiel Hotel under the B.C.

Housing Management Commission and lift the ban and have it fixed up

properly for the senior citizens of Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, it is the intent to have this facility transfer

jurisdictions from Highways and Communications to Lands, Parks and

Housing. If that does take place, which is a matter of policy decision,

it will be administered by BCHMC.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $129,448.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a new subject in the agricultural

estimates, just for a few moments, related to the minister's

responsibility. Essentially what I have to say is in the area of a

difference of philosophy that exists, by performance rather than by

statements, between the government and the official opposition.

think at this stage, Mr. Chairman, there is hardly anyone in the

province who is now vocally or politically opposed to preserving

agricultural land in the province of British Columbia. Aside from the

heat and lack of light generated in this House during the debate on the

agricultural land reserve, it's generally accepted that when my

colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was the Minister of

Agriculture, one of the most successful accomplishments of his

leadership in that department was pioneering the agricultural land

reserve. The people of this province are thankful for that.

that time the atmosphere was politically charged. There were

demonstrations on the lawns of the Legislature. The official opposition

at that time, the Social Credit Party, made it very clear that they

were opposed to the agricultural land reserve. At that time they were

joined by the now new Socreds who were formerly Liberals. They were the

present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the former

Attorney-General, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom), and the Minister of Finance (Hon Mr. Curtis), who was at

that time a Conservative — also the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the minister who is now

leaving the chamber, who I particularly want to address my remarks to,

the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), as he was at that time, I

find it disappointing that the member for Langley, the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, is leaving the chamber in this

particular debate. But let me remind the House that my colleague at

that time pioneered legislation that was later copied by a number of

Canadian

[ Page 2602 ]

jurisdictions and studied aggressively by 13 American states. It was the subject of....

Don't hide out there. Come into the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Poor Eileen. Come on in.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

It's not the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), Mr. Chairman; she

supported the agricultural land reserve It's not the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke); he supported the agricultural land reserve.

But it was the member for Langley who poked his head in here and then

took off down the hall. We'll get to him in a minute.

took the abuse normally associated with mature parliamentary debate

when outside this chamber there were demonstrations of land developers

and real estate promoters, who put on straw hats, bunked up a piece of

grass, walked up in front of this chamber and said they were defending

the rights of farmers to do with their land as they wished. Yes, we

went through the debates in this chamber about how preserving farmland

was a dangerous socialist plot. Now we must deal with the fact that 80

percent of the population of British Columbia back the concept of the

agricultural land reserve and not one of those people would dare stand

up publicly and say: "Vote for me and we'll destroy the agricultural

land reserve." Is it not correct that the official position now of the

Social Credit government is to talk in favour of the agricultural land

reserve and preserving farmland? Is that not the official position of

the government?

MR. HOWARD: It would seem to be.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, my colleague. It would seem to be that we have a group of

born-again land preservers over on the government side who have

learned, at least now, to speak from both sides of their mouth. They

don't attack the agricultural land reserve; they don't officially

oppose the agricultural land reserve; they just allow it to be dribbled

away. We lose more and more agricultural land every single day.

One

of the most dangerous amendments made to that legislation was made by

the Social Credit government when it allowed appeals on the

agricultural land reserve to go to a cabinet subcommittee. They placed

themselves in the arena of making political decisions about what land

should come out of the agricultural land reserve. As a matter of fact,

the former chairman of the agricultural land reserve said about the

particular case I'm going to talk about, the Gloucester estates, that

that particular case was a political decision.

I am going to

talk about the transcripts of the ELUC. I'm going to talk about the

position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who

is also the member for that area. I'm going to talk about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that property still before the courts?

MR. BARRETT:

It's not the matter that's before the courts, my friends, because I

like to be in order at all times. I would be in order in here because

we have one of the most competent chairmen of chambers anywhere in the

Commonwealth.

We have witnessed a string of political interference in the agricultural land

reserve. We have witnessed a government that, when in opposition, fought against

the agricultural land reserve and, when in government, found that it was a popular,

desirable social and economic goal and then started to go around the back door

to getting land out of the agricultural land reserve. There are just three cases

that raise doubts in people's minds about political interference. The first

one I want to refer you to, Mr. Chairman, is in 1977. Does the minister know

a Doug Brett?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: You do? Is he a Social Credit colleague of yours?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Brett Motors, in Chilliwack.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A nod of the head is interesting.

The minister seems to have a better memory about 1977 than he does of a

couple weeks ago and the ARA. He has a selective memory.

Mr.

Brett got eight acres removed from the agricultural land reserve by

ELUC after a special appeal by the Chilliwack MLA. Prior to this the

Land Commission had rejected this exclusion twice. Political

interference? I don't know. But Mr. Brett somehow seemed to have the

political clout to get the politicians to remove the land from the

agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Len Bawtree, the former MLA

for Shuswap, supported Seymour Arm Estates and its bid to have 424

acres on Shuswap Lake removed from the agricultural land reserve. In

spite of the lengthy commission investigation and objections to the

exclusion by the regional district and the federal fisheries, the

Environment and Land Use Committee approved the removal of land in the

ALR in a hearing that lasted only 25 minutes. A little whiff of

politics and down the tube goes the regional district. A little whiff

of politics and down the tube go two earlier rejections. A little whiff

of politics and the federal fisheries go down the tube.

Then

we come to Gloucester estates and the decision to remove it from the

agricultural land reserve. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

has to be praised. He's on the Environmental Land Use Committee that

heard the appeal on the Gloucester estates and he said that he would

not participate in the decision itself — he wouldn't vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, to my best knowledge the Gloucester Properties matter is

still before the courts. Unless the Leader of the Opposition can prove

otherwise, I believe he's out of order in dealing with a matter that is

before the courts and sub judice.

MR. BARRETT: On the

same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for

raising this point, because it's necessary for me to remind the House

that earlier in this session the same point was raised and it was found

that sub judice was not applicable in this case. It was already decided

once this session. Now that we've had that decision....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture on a further point of order on the same matter.

[ Page 2603 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am dealing with the matter of the decision

by the judge who dealt with that case, which involved the Agricultural

Land Commission, that no actions, no hearing and no debate should be

carried on while that matter was before the court. This meant that the

Agricultural Land Commission could not deal with it, and I consider

this House and its debate would fall into the same category under that

judge's ruling. I ask for some advice, Mr. Chairman. Possibly you could

give us some guidance and the Leader of the Opposition could go onto

some other matter in the meantime.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

matter raised by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the Minister

of Agriculture on the points of order are, I think, worth the time of

this House to take just a few moments to discuss the details that are

before us. In the meantime, prior to the Chair coming back with some

kind of further considered opinion on it, I would ask the Leader of the

Opposition to possibly discuss another aspect that the member is

referring to without the specifics of the one under consideration now.

I will undertake to bring that information back to the House just as

quickly as possible.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I

will abide by your ruling. I will confine my remarks purely then to the

minutes of the Environment and Land Use Committee rather than the

merits or demerits of the case. I do think it's important, though, to

point out that to my knowledge there is nothing from the court

suggesting that this chamber avoid this subject. As a matter of fact,

no court has any authority to determine what is or what is not

discussed in this chamber. Thank you, I wanted to point that out.

Therefore,

until I have your full ruling on the matter as sub judice, I want to

confine my remarks to the July 4, 1979, hearing of the cabinet's

Environment and Land Use Committee minutes, which are public documents

and will not be editorialized by myself. I want to read from these

documents, because they are a matter of public record and they have no

influence on the court case whatsoever.

It is a matter of

record that one of the members of the committee was the member for

Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He had

decided that because this sensitive matter about an appeal of the

removal of some 600-plus acres from the Environment and Land Use

Committee....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you quoting from Hansard , or are you editorializing?

MR. BARRETT:

No. Just a minute now. I'm quoting directly from the minutes of the

meeting of ELUC. The committee met to hear an appeal by Gloucester

Properties. I quote from the transcript of the July meeting. Mr.

Chairman, the minister said that he did not wish to vote, but I read

the transcript of the words that were spoken, a matter of public record

of the transcript, given wide distribution by a Vancouver newspaper

that is notorious for its quotation of cabinet ministers and as a

result has earned itself the honour of being attacked as vicious,

because it quotes cabinet ministers correctly. Well, let's listen to

these quotations directly from the transcript.

"HON.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am disturbed, and it gives me an opportunity to say

this, perhaps for the first time, about some of the reasons we get from

the Land Commission in terms of alienation. And it's my opinion that it

is really none of the Land Commission's business if we have enough

industrial land or not. "

That is a statement from a cabinet minister in Environment and Land Use....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's out of context.

MR. BARRETT:

Out of context! Well, Mr. Chairman, if it's out of context, perhaps he

could put it into context. But I quote here: "It is really none of the

Land Commission's business if we have enough industrial land or not."

Out of context of what? It is out of context of a philosophy, if I may

be permitted, that has already committed itself to the concept that

they are annoyed by the Agricultural Land Commission to begin with.

Then

the minister went on to say he really believes in the Gloucester

proposal; he has no expertise in the field of agrology — a confession.

All the agrologists say that it's agricultural land. Then I go on to

quote the minister:

"But I've lived in the

area for a long time, and I've watched this land, and it has never been

considered anything else but either commercial or industrial land. I

can't recall any member of the community having any consideration of

this land for agricultural purposes as long as I've lived in the

Langley area, which is about 25 years now."

That's quoting; that's all. It's a matter of public record. Don't flush. Don't blush. Cool. That's the reality.

The minister went on to say, in opposition to keeping this land in the land reserve:

do believe as well that there has not been enough care taken in rating

the land by the Land Commission and its agents. I think that the

comparison we have here given today by Mr. Runka, in terms of other

land which is of similar soil classification being used for

agricultural purpose, is extremely simplistic. "

confesses that he's not an agrologist; he confesses that his only

knowledge of the land is because he's lived in the area for 25 years,

but then he attacks the professional competence of the Agricultural

Land Commission by saying that they've been simplistic in having these

tests — no evidence of any tests contrary to the Agricultural Land

Commission; no presentation to the committee of any scientific

knowledge other than a feeling for the area.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

No, not at all. This is a case that will be disputed by professionals.

The courts will not be under political influence. But I do believe that

ELUC was purely a political decision, based on the speech by the

minister. He goes on to say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The House Leader on a point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I was in my room when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was making a

point. Then I heard my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt)

[ Page 2604 ]

rise

on a point of order dealing with the sub judice rule. I would very much

like just to articulate the sub judice rule for the guidance of all

members of the House, Mr. Chairman, because I understand you're

considering the point in question. I'm reading from the Journals of January 20, 1956, on a decision by Speaker Irwin. He says:

"There's

nothing mysterious about the words 'sub judice.' A matter is sub judice

when that matter is pending before a tribunal having judicial powers.

The reason for the rule that matters sub judice may not be referred to

in debate or upon a motion is twofold. In the first place, it might be

inferred that a breach of this rule would be not only a grave

discourtesy to the court, but might also be considered an improper

usurpation of the powers of the court or an attempt to influence the

court — an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very distinct

and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary. In the second

place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her Majesty's subjects

to a fair trial before the proper tribunal."

I am not

putting any reflection upon the leader of the official opposition, nor

upon my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. But I think there is a

very fine line here, and I think that fine line should be very

carefully followed by all members of the Legislature in this debate. If

we start to move into the area that is sub judice, I would respectfully

request, Mr. Chairman, that you draw the member to order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his comments. I am very

careful. The court case deals with the matter of jurisdiction over the

decision, and that I will not discuss. The court case came about

because of the Premier's statements requesting that ELUC reconsider the

decision. Gloucester has gone to court because there is apparently no

authority to fulfill the Premier's request. The land is now in limbo.

The court will not discuss the merits — as we see it — of whether or

not the land should stay in. The problem before the courts, which I

will avoid completely, is whether or not the court has jurisdiction. I

do have opinions about that, but I won't express those opinions.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for his remarks. Also in

the ruling of Speaker Irwin, he refers to a decision in New South Wales

in 1932. "The late Sir Daniel Levy, then Speaker, ruled that it was not

for the Speaker to microscopically sift the relevant from the

irrelevant evidence" — because the Speaker obviously does not have that

power or that capacity, or the evidence before him — "but to liberally…"

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Absolutely nothing; I am just seeing that we follow the appropriate

rules of debate. If you don't mind letting me finish the quotation, I'd

like to.

"…apply the sub judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate."

MR. MACDONALD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what is being canvassed here is not

the question that is before the court at all. If the minister believes

it is, he should bring in the writ. What is being canvassed here is why

the land was allowed to be taken out of the land reserve and given to

the Chilean consortium for industrial development. What is being

canvassed here is why the Minister of Environment was signing leaves to

appeal as if he was giving out popcorn at a theatre, although that is a

judicial act. That is not before any court in the land. It is before

the people of this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was hoping the member would come to the point.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, I am. The point is very clear. What we are talking about is why

this government allowed that 625 acres to be taken out of the

agricultural land reserve. The court case is a case saying, on behalf

of the Chilean consortium, that you can't put it back in again. They're

trying to block you on that. That part we have to leave alone, because

that is before the courts. But we want to know why that land was let

go, and why ELUC acted the way it did, and why the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources took the position he did when he was

dealing with his own friends.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, points of order must not stretch into speeches at any time.

Before

recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, hon. members must appreciate

that the Chair does have some difficulty in trying to assemble facts of

which it is not totally aware and is not in possession. Until the Chair

is able to make some determination, I would ask hon. members to

possibly refrain from the specifics that are involved, to stick to the

general points the Leader of the Opposition was referring to prior to

the specific case that is presently before us, and to allow the Chair

some time to come back to the House with a little more information.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. You and I were doing well until

politics intervened. That frequently happens in this chamber. I want to

stick purely and strictly to the relevant matter, which is really the

only appropriate matter that can be discussed under the minister's

estimates, and that is the reason why land is removed from the

agricultural land reserve. I am selecting one case, which I will not

refer to in terms of the court case that is going on, where the Premier

screwed it up — I won't refer to his screwing it up, either — by making

the statement that the land should be going back through ELUC. That has

now become a messy court case — which I won't refer to as a messy court

case — which my colleague referred to and which the former

Attorney-General objected to. Have you got that all down? Now we can

deal with the matter.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources sat on the committee and announced that he had

become an expert on whether or not the land should stay in the land

reserve because he lived next to the land for 25 years. Mr. Chairman,

if that is the criterion for expertise, then I'm entitled to be just as

qualifying. I've lived in British Columbia all my life. When I look at

a mountaintop, I know you can't grow carrots on top of the mountain.

But when I look....

Interjection.

[ Page 2605 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that minister should not interject about anything to do with any kind of roofs or any kind of tops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Vicious attack!

MR. BARRETT: You know, one of the things I've learned in this House

is that if you're talking in the House and nobody interrupts you, you know

you must be on a subject that doesn't bother anybody. But when you talk

about something that upsets the government, they're constantly interrupting.

It's bad manners. It's worse than bad manners; I think it is guilt-motivated.

And when I hear that forced laugh by the member who used to hand out appeals

like popcorn in the lobby of a theatre, as my friend so aptly puts it, I begin

to think that you doth laugh too much, if I may paraphrase something, Mr. Chairman.

The minister doth choke up too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm trying to be nice. But I find it interesting that in their drive to

make posterity they have recorded minutes of what they said at

committee meetings and these minutes come home to haunt them. I'm

saying to you that there was straight political interference in removal

of that property from the agricultural land reserve.

I want

to go on further and read what the minister said. I think it's

appropriate to understand how they feel about civil servants they don't

agree with. This is what they say after they hire experts and the

experts tell them that things aren't so good. This is what they say

when they disagree. I'm quoting the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, the MLA from Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), from

the minutes. Here are the full minutes, Mr. Speaker, if they'd like an

autographed copy.

"I do believe, as well,

that there has not been enough care taken in rating the land by the

Land Commission and its agents. I think that the comparison that we are

given today by Mr. Runka in terms of other land which is of similar

soil classification being used for agriculture purposes is extremely

simplistic."

Here is the minister saying that

the measure of the land has been simplistic. He's lived beside it for

25 years and he knows it best. He's saying that Mr. Runka is being

simplistic. This is Mr. Runka's background, Mr. Chairman.

Mr.

Runka is a graduate from UBC with a bachelor of science in agriculture

degree with a major in soil science in 1961. He received a master's in

natural resources management and land use planning from Cornell

University in 1967. He has worked with the soils survey branch of the

B.C. Agriculture ministry and has written two detailed soil surveys of

the Matsqui municipality. He has also worked as a B.C. field

co-ordinator for agriculture and forestry with the Canada Land

Inventory program; wrote two documents that form the basis of the CLI's

work. He is a member of the Institute of Agrologists, and in 1978 was

named B.C. agrologist of the year.

This is a man who is an

acknowledged expert in soils, an acknowledged expert in British

Columbia soil conditions, an acknowledged specialist expert in the

Matsqui area in land, and he is being attacked at a committee meeting

by the member for Langley as being too simplistic, because the member

for Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

says: "I know it better. I lived beside it for 25 years." That says it

all for UBC. Pack up the whole department of agrologists over there.

Pack up all of Discovery Park. Don't spend another dime on research.

Just hire the minister. He knows it all just by being close to the land.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, no. Don't say that. I don't want that member to repeat that, being

close to his friends. It's got nothing to do with his campaign

committee chairperson, as someone is alleging. Politics has got nothing

to do with this. These people are as pure as the driven snow.

MR. LEA: On Mount St. Helens.

MR. BARRETT:

The minister goes on after attacking Mr. Runka and says: "It is my

opinion, as a reasonably active member of the community over a long

time.... .. What is his reasonable activity in the community? He's a

politician. An honourable profession. To be successful you must be

reasonably active. But he goes on to say: "It is my opinion, as a

reasonably active member of the community over a long time, that

basically the whole community is in favour of this proposal being

developed for industrial purposes, and I also believe that it is an

example of almost perfect industrial land." So says Mr. McClelland —

and I use the name only because it's used there.

Mr.

Chairman, is it not the purpose of government to listen to the advice

of people with professional expertise they hire themselves, and not to

fly in the face of political pressure? Is it not the purpose of

government to take decisions based on the best need of the total

community, and not to bow to political pressure?

The

minister goes on to say: "It's not good agricultural land." The

minister also said he received letters from B.C. Hydro indicating it

was in favour of the proposal. Why, Mr. Chairman? You and I should know

why: Hydro will benefit from the ELUC decision because it has a rail

line running through the area and expects to get some of the

transportation business from industries located there. It has been told

by Gloucester that its industrial park subsidy company can develop

about 80 acres adjoining the tracks, in a straight swap for a

similar-size parcel of land nearby that is still in the agricultural

land reserve.

Committee members who were present at that

meeting.... Well, Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. Just as I was going to

read the list of who the committee members were, I realized that as

soon as I raised the subject they all took off.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm here.

MR. BARRETT: One guy is there — the patsy of the group. You've got to stay there.

Here

are the committee members who were there: Highways minister Alex Fraser

— missing; Energy minister Jim Hewitt — he's here, but he is now

Minister of Agriculture; Forests minister....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has just brought to my

[ Page 2606 ]

attention

that he's dealing with matters that deal with the Land Commission and

that were prior to my term in office. I wonder whether I can have some

guidance as to whether or not I am put in a position of answering.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a valid point. I'm only referring

to it because he was present at the meeting and now is Minister of

Agriculture. But I appreciate the minister's sudden conversion to being

a student of the rules of this House, and since he's so interested, he

would also know that it is my obligation, having quoted from a document

which bears his name, that I must table the document.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not in committee.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, I wouldn't dare think of doing it in committee, but I know that one

of my own colleagues might jump up and say: "Stick to the rules. When

we rise out of committee, you're going to have to table that document,

member for Vancouver East " I will be shamed and embarrassed into

tabling the document from which I quoted the minister's statement, so I

can stay in order. I want to thank the member for keeping me in order.

Also there were: "Forests minister Tom Waterland" — missing; "Municipal Affairs minister Bill Vander Zalm" — he's here.

MR. LEA: But sort of missing.

MR. BARRETT:

No, no, no, he is here, When the leader is away, we know who plays. And

who's that fellow beside him? I expect to hear from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs how he feels about his role in the ELUC decision to

take this acreage out of the agricultural land reserve. I'll bet you

this: I'll bet you know a great deal more about soils than the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources does. I'll bet you that and

I'll grant you that too, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEA: Would it grow tulips, for instance?

MR. BARRETT:

Well, I went out there and saw it, and want to tell you how God planned

this land, just so people can understand. I went out to the property

and I was told that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. We

drove out in a bus, a group of us, and we were followed by

photographers and we were followed by TV cameras.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And all your hacks.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. A little nervous, are you? Well, that's fine.

We got off the bus and we walked along the road where the property was, and

on one side of the road you could see a line from the road down out of sight

along the property line. On one side of the property line was scrub brush, land

that wasn't cleared, and right on the property line was land that was cleared,

ploughed and getting ready for a crop. Now God didn't subdivide the land;

man did. On the side that Gloucester Properties' property was on, it has

not been cleared; it has not been made into agricultural land. But we are to

be told that it is not agricultural land at all, when running down the very

edge of it and side by side is land that is considered by the owner and the

agricultural land reserve as prime agricultural land. Did God come down from

the heavens and say: "I'm going to draw a line down here, straight

as a die, right along the edge of this property, and on one side there shall

be agricultural land and on the other side there shall be land to be removed

from the agricultural land reserve"?

MR. BARBER: Just like he parted the Red Sea.

MR. BARRETT:

Just like he parted the Red Sea. He did not divide the land, Mr.

Chairman. Any damned fool could see that that property is good

agricultural land and available to be used as agricultural land. I'm

not talking about any damned fool; I'm talking about a group of

specific ones. They have been recorded here in these minutes as flying

in the face of all the experts and saying that this is not agricultural

land. They have left the suspicion in the public's mind that politics

has more part to play in a decision on agricultural land than logic and

reason.

In the committee the minister went on to say that he

thought his decision was best because he lived next to it. I accuse

that minister of being impotent in the face of political pressures.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Who, me?

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, you. I accuse you, through you, Mr. Chairman, of being impotent in

the face of pressures from real estate developers and land scalpers who

want to get agricultural land out of the reserve. I accuse this

government of deliberately moving land out of the reserve on the basis

of political influence, not scientific interests at all. I accuse that

minister of caving in to real estate interests and allowing land to be

lost simply on the basis of influence, not on the basis of reason. My

time is up but I will be back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to

recognizing the Minister of Agriculture I would ask at this time that

the previous speaker must withdraw the reference to "fools," as it was

made in his speech. I would ask at this time that he withdraw that

inference.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "fools" but not "damned." Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both would be appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I withdraw the words "damned fools."

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I was, at the beginning of my remarks, going to make the same request.

I thought it was unparliamentary for the Leader of the Opposition — a

man who has held the position of Premier of this province — to use that

kind of language in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I think I struck a chord. Do you remember they were talking about

response over here? Did you see what happened? All of a sudden they all

came alive over there.

I just want to respond somewhat to

some of the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. In

regard to the property that he commented on, I can tell this House that

[ Page 2607 ]

many instances where I've sat on the Environment and Land Use Committee

we've had regional district endorsement and municipal endorsement of a

withdrawal from the agricultural land reserve. That committee has had

to determine in its own mind that the appeal should not be allowed. The

Leader of the Opposition would lead you to think that the committee

caves in under pressure. But, of course, he doesn't refer to the many,

many numbers of cases or appeals that are heard where the appeal is

denied. Whether the appeal is granted or denied the Leader of the

Opposition would not tell this House, the press gallery or the people

in the gallery that at a meeting of the Environment and Land Use

Committee we have the opportunity to hear a submission from the

Agricultural Land Commission representatives, from the agrologists,

from the owners of the property and their agrologists.

MR. SKELLY: In public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, your leader has referred to Hansard , which is a public document.

also hear from the agrologists involved, the Land Commission, as I

mentioned, and from the people involved owning the land, and from the

municipality and-or the regional district. It's not a decision that is

made lightly nor is it a decision made in a darkened room under the

"political atmosphere. " It is a decision that is made after

presentation by all affected parties, considering that this is an

appeal on somebody's land. They are at least given an opportunity to

have that right of appeal, to have that opportunity to come before the

Environment and Land Use Committee and make their presentation. And the

Land Commission agrologists make their representation and then we

attempt to make a fair and just decision.

In the case of one

property that was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he is very

critical of the fact that the decision was made, but he would not

comment in this House in regard to the fact that this government, in

dealing with that decision, determined to take "a second look" to

ensure that we were giving fair justice not only to the people who

owned the property but to the Agricultural Land Commission and the

concept of the agricultural land reserve.

I sometimes feel

obligated to comment, especially after the Leader of the Opposition

speaks, that when he talks about being political, there is one

gentleman in this gathering who, to my way of thinking, is the best

I've ever seen — he can be very political and present himself very

well, although his facts are quite often somewhat slanted. I might

mention, because we are dealing with the agricultural land reserves,

that in 1974 when the previous administration designated agricultural

land in this province, there were 11,661,600 acres in the reserve.

After some four or five years, the amount in the agricultural land

reserve is 11,635,204. That is at the end of 1979. I don't have my

calculator, nor can I do a quick calculation, but out of 11 million

acres, about 26,000 acres have been removed.

I will tell

you, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure you're well aware, and so are members

opposite well aware — that the broad brushstrokes that laid the

agricultural land reserve in 1974 were just that. The Canadian Land

Inventory maps were broad brushstrokes, and in many cases put gravel

pits in agricultural land designation and had good agricultural land

outside the designated prime land. Since that time we have been doing

fine-tuning to properly identify agricultural land that should be in

the reserve, and those areas that really shouldn't have been in the

reserve in the first place are being excluded. In the main that is

what's happened over the past several years. The members opposite also

know — if they've looked in my estimate book yet — that we have

$384,000 in my estimates this year to carry on that fine-tuning, which

is one instalment out of, I believe, approximately $1.4 million over

the next four years which has been allocated to fine-tune the

agricultural land reserve.

The Leader of the Opposition

talks in generalities and makes some comments in regard to political

interference. I would just like to close by saying it is not political

interference but giving the opportunity for an individual who owns the

land to have the right of appeal — at least to have that court of

appeal that he can approach. The member opposite also knows that before

the amendment came in in 1977, I believe it was, the Agricultural Land

Commission.... If two members of the commission signed the right of

appeal it went to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The amendment

allowed the minister to have the opportunity to grant or not to grant

the right of appeal, should the owner of the property not get support

from two members from the Land Commission to allow this appeal to

proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the

member for New Westminster, I must advise members that under this vote,

while we may touch the minister's office, vote 18 specifically deals

with the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, and if it is the

intention of members to deal with the specifics of the ALR in vote 10,

then it would be virtually impossible for the Chair to permit a repeat

debate of the same matters under vote 18, which is also to come in this

series. That is understood by members.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, just to comment on your suggestion, in order to make comments

on a particular area of a minister's obligations, a minister's

responsibility, one has to be able to establish relationships with

other aspects of his work. To deal with the ALR under vote 18 would

place the opposition in a very restricted position. I'm sure that a

Chairman with the great capacity that you have would see us being

called to order on a number of occasions, just as we've been called to

order on rather a flimsy suggestion a few moments ago.

think probably what we're hearing now is a description of wheeling and

dealing in the Fraser Valley. That's precisely what happened in the

circumstance that we've been discussing. Let me tell you who is

totally, completely and absolutely opposed to that kind of wheeling and

dealing. They were worried about it and have been for a long, long

time. Here are a group of people participating in a statement that came

out in opposition to this whole question of a cabinet committee — the

ELUC — appeal. These people are as follows: the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture — I think they have a bit of a responsibility in this area

and also some knowledge; the Consumers Association in B.C.; the British

Columbia Institute of Agrologists; the B.C. Women's Institutes; the

United Church; the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; the Planning

Institute of B.C.; and, believe it or not, the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce. What did these people say? Well, in part — and I'd like to

allude to this — they said:

"It is, therefore,

with a great deal of concern that the organizations represented here

this morning have viewed the events of recent months and weeks involv-

[ Page 2608 ]

ing the provincial government and exclusions from the agricultural

land reserve. In our view there can no longer be any doubt that what we are

witnessing is the demise of the process of farmland preservation in this province.

It is our firm belief that this demise may be traced to an amendment that was

introduced to the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1977, which gave the Minister

of Environment and the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet the authority

to overrule the decisions of the Land Commission and remove land from the agricultural

land reserve. "

That is the key to what we're talking about. That is the key to this whole

problem in the Fraser Valley, to the problem in the Salmon Arm district, and

to many of those incidents which involved getting land out of the agricultural

land reserve.

recall the case in the Fraser Valley particularly, as I also had a look

at the land. I went out there with the Leader of the Opposition and

others and we were amazed at the similarity of the land that was right

next door. As a matter of fact, it was identical — the contour of the

land, etc. — and everybody knows it. But the one thing that I recall

when we visited that area is the number of groups that spoke to us on

November 16, 1979. There were the agrologists, farmers' institutes,

consumers' associations and the farmland committee. Gary Runka himself

and others spoke at that meeting. What I read between the lines was, I

think, what has become public since, and that is that the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the member

for Langley, who's such an expert on agricultural land, was doing a

favour for Ainslie Lorretto. Who is Ainslie Lorretto? He was an

executive person with the Gloucester Properties, who was also very

active in the minister's campaign. He said he'd been in Langley 25

years and therefore knew the land well, and felt that the land should

go to industry. We had people speaking to us that day — on November, 16

— who had hundreds of years of residence there. That meeting went from

10 in the morning until about 4:30 in the afternoon, and it never

stopped.

The real concern in this province, Mr. Chairman, is

the fact that they took this whole question of agricultural land

appeals and placed it in an area where politicians make the decisions.

That decision was made by a rump group of cabinet, even at that. Of

course the government got a little bit embarrassed. The Premier made

some statements which have taken it away from this particular aspect

and made it a jurisdictional thing; I'm not going to deal with that. I

do say that it should never have happened in the first place. We argued

that when you place this kind of responsibility on cabinet members,

there will be a tendency among some to bow to pressure. When we set up

the Agricultural Land Commission we felt that it should be kept away

from that area. Keep it out of the political arena and keep it in the

area where people who are making the decisions are making them in the

best interests of the long-term use of the land and not in the best

interests — as we've seen here…to the long-term benefit of Ainslie

Lorretto, a great friend of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. They work together.

AN HON. MEMBER: Character assassination.

MR. COCKE: Character assassination, my foot!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you specialize in.

MR. COCKE: That's not what I specialize in.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly is.

MR. COCKE: I deal with the truth. If you can stand up here and argue this point, then do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have the protection of the House, and you assassinate anybody you can.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, just in case the member forgot what I said, Ainslie

Lorretto, who worked on the election committee of the Minister of

Energy, and is a good friend of the Minister of Energy, made the whole

thing look very bad.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about Cottonwood Corners, my friend?

MR. COCKE: What about Cottonwood Corners? Why don't you get up on your feet and talk about it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've got a sore foot.

MR. COCKE: I noticed that your foot is sore. We bring you great sympathy from the opposition.

The

minister talks about fine-tuning and fair and just decisions. Then he

turns around and says that the Leader of the Opposition was too general

in his discussion. The Leader of the Opposition was quoting from a

factual record, a transcript of a committee on which the minister sat.

Yet he was too general. But then he went on to say himself that what

they were interested in was fair and just decisions, fine-tuning of the

agricultural land reserve. If that kind of fine-tuning is represented

by the kind of decision that we saw — influenced by the Minister of

Energy.... There's no question of that. The Minister of Energy said

that that should be industrial land down in the heart of agricultural

land. The fact that B.C. Hydro supported that.... Well, B.C. Hydro also

supports the Site C dam, which will ruin countless acres of

agricultural land in this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: How many?

MR. COCKE: Sixty-five hundred.

HON. MR. FRASER: Have you ever been there?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have, incidentally.

HON. MR. FRASER: You must have been lost.

MR. COCKE:

The minister who can't find his way from his office to the House tells

me that I must have been lost. Anyway, we're wishing you the best of

luck, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: That minister found his way onto Gloucester Properties, you know.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, and he was at the ELUC meeting, where his colleague the Minister

of Energy influenced the rest of the committee to make a very bad move

and move some very good land into industrial zoning.

[ Page 2609 ]

People

from all over this province are saying: "For heaven's sake, get rid of

this system of doing business in terms of holding and in terms of

keeping agricultural land.'' The district of West Vancouver — what did

they say? November 9, 1979:

"Whereas it is

essential to the people of British Columbia that effective policies be

followed for preservation of farmland, and

whereas recent events

centering on the removal of some Fraser Valley land from the

agricultural land reserve create a perception that present policies and

procedures in this regard are not effective, therefore

be it resolved

that the municipal council of West Vancouver call upon the provincial

government to review and where necessary revise policies and procedures

so that the vital objective of safeguarding farmland and its retention

for agricultural purposes can be fully achieved. Copy of this motion to

be circulated to all cabinet ministers, members of the Legislative

Assembly and mayors of lower mainland municipalities."

Why

is it that, from that embarrassing day to this, not a thing has been

done — no change in the legislation? We have the same old gang doing

the same things. Until one happens to be fortunate enough or lucky

enough to trip over them. sometimes.... It's hard for the opposition

and it's hard for people within a municipality to monitor everything

that's going on. It should be part and parcel of the whole area.

When

the agrologists and others wrote or wired all the members of the House,

they were talking about further erosion of the provincial agricultural

land base. This was the Federation of Agriculture and many others — the

Institute of Agrologists and so on. They put forward three propositions:

" 1) that a chairman of widely recognized capability, stature and objectivity be immediately appointed to the Land Commission. "

AN HON. MEMBER: Done!

MR. COCKE: "Done!" the member says.

"2) that the present appeal process for exclusion from agricultural

land reserves be amended to remove from the political arena the decision to

allow or disallow appeals to go forward to the Environment and Land Use Committee

of cabinet;

"3) that until such time as the appeal process can be amended,

the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet be required to make public

their reasons behind any decision to exclude land from an agricultural land

reserve."

Things

haven't changed to the extent that they should have. Yes, the

government has been embarrassed, but this government doesn't seem to

mind being embarrassed. They seem to flourish and grow with a cloud

over their head.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's right. We're moving ahead all the time.

MR. COCKE:

It's no joke, despite the fact that the Minister of Agriculture seems

to think it is. There have been far too many things: dirty tricks,

thousand-dollar bills and all these questions. I think that this

government, more than any other government, should be super-clean and

put themselves at arm's length from any of these decisions. But they're

not doing it. They continue the same old way, doing the same old

things. We're just not going to sit back and leave a poor apparatus

like this without having it thoroughly canvassed.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, Mr. Member, when you've finally been schooled, when you've learned

what you re doing here, then you will also have learned what we're

doing here. The opposition is charged with the responsibility of

criticizing government, and this government has given us the best

opportunity that any opposition ever had. They're awful, and you're

their supporters. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I would be

ashamed of myself if I was one of their supporters, I'll tell you —

wheeling and dealing government in every respect.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The member who stood up in the House the other day and announced that

he was stunned is proving over and over again that what he said then

was right. It would appear that he will continue to be stunned as long

as he's here.

MR. BRUMMET: Give the rest of my speech.

MR. COCKE: I'll leave that for you, Mr. Member. You stood up and said that you were stunned.

hope that the minister will stand up in the House today and will

announce to one and all that he is also dissatisfied with the method of

appeal, with the whole setup that we have where politicians can turn

around decisions made by people who should be well trained in the area

of their responsibility. If the minister will do that, he'll come a

long way in redeeming himself before his colleagues and before the

opposition in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First, before

recognizing the member for New Westminster, I advised that if it was

the intention to carry out detailed examination of the Land Commission

under vote 10, such an examination could not continue under vote 18.

Secondly, in regard to the sub judice matter, I might quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 118,

section 335:

"Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters

that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose

of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or

undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial

inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the

interest of justice and fair play."

regard to the application of the sub judice rule to the debate in hand,

I've listened to the submission of the Leader of the Opposition and the

House Leader. While the sub judice rule has been strictly applied in

this House, I note that in the case at hand there appears to be

sufficient difference at this point between the debate and the subject

of the court case that the rule ought not to be applied in this case.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 2610 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

We have a number of visitors from Skagit Valley College of Mount

Vernon, Washington, led by Mr. Madison E. Morrell. I had the

opportunity of meeting Mr. Morrell at a Doukhobor cultural festival a

week or so ago. He has brought some 30 or 40 students to sit in the

House today and see how we do the people's business in British

Columbia. I would like everybody to bid them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I had certainly not intended to enter this debate, but when I listen to

the Leader of the Opposition stand once again in this House and talk

about the Land Commission and Bill 42, as it was when it was introduced

in this Legislature, and talk in glowing terms about Bill 42, and how

it was the intent of the socialists when they were in power to protect

agricultural land, I am forced to rise and set this Legislature

straight once again, Mr. Chairman. I want to remind all the members of

the Legislature, those in the gallery and all the citizens of British

Columbia, that when Bill 42 was originally introduced in this House, it

was a bill which took away the inherent rights of every British

Columbian to own land. You talk about dictatorship. You talk about

confiscation of land. That was the bill that took away the inherent

right of those who pioneered this country and made it possible for

those socialists to come here and bring in policies that were not

normal to the people of British Columbia.

I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, that that bill, when it was first introduced in this

House, was complete dictatorship. It took away the rights of individual

British Columbians to own land. The members on this side of the House

and the majority of people in British Columbia want to save

agricultural land for agriculture and to grow food, but that was not

the intent of that.... I was almost going to say communist bill, and it

almost was a communist bill because it completely usurped the rights of

individual citizens with absolutely no recourse to the laws that

existed. That's the type of bill they brought in. Had it not been for

the opposition, as we were at that time, that bill would have passed in

this Legislature. Make no mistake about it. Certainly you will find all

supporters of this party in favour of preserving agricultural land for

agricultural purposes. But the broad-brush application that the

socialists put on agricultural land.... They had swamps, forests,

boulder patches, and everything in the agricultural land reserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: And mountains.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, mountains and mines. A broad-brush approach to try and sell their

policies. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that this government never

has or never will be in favour of taking away the rights of individuals

to own land. When they did finally come to their senses, because of the

opposition that we put up while we were over there, when they brought

in the new bill, you could hardly recognize it from the original

because there were so many amendments.

That was one of the

cruellest hoaxes on a free society ever brought in by any Legislature

in Canada or any state in the union. I don't want the people of British

Columbia to forget that no matter how much they can stand up today and

say it was in the interest of preserving farmland, that original bill

was not in the interest of preserving farmland; it was in the interest

of doing away with the free ownership of land in British Columbia by

individuals. That bill was straight out of the Waffle Manifesto. Make

no mistake about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Certainly we opposed it. But we were not opposed to the preservation of

farmland. We were opposed to taking away the rights of individuals to

own land. Had that bill gone forward in its original form, there

wouldn't be one citizen of British Columbia who could not have come

under its cruet, harsh, dictatorial powers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, the original Bill 42 that they stand up today and brag about

was confiscation of land without compensation. It was designation of

land into any area that they wanted to designate land without normal

justice. It usurped Canada's long-standing heritage of having

individual citizens owning land. It was completely dictatorial. As I

say, I didn't intend to rise in this debate, but I'm sick and tired of

listening to the Leader of the Opposition come in here and tell us that

we were against the preservation of farmland. We were not against the

preservation of farmland, but we were for the rights of individuals.

That's why we fought Bill 42, and that's why they changed it. They knew

it was out of the Waffle Manifesto. They knew that the people of this

great province would not stand idly by and see them bring in

legislation which was foreign to their heritage.

MR. SKELLY:

I would also like to add my words of welcome to the students of Skagit

Valley College, and a little bit of a word of warning to them that the

member who previously spoke was an exception that proves the rule that

where there's smoke there's fire.

I would like to ask leave of the House, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my wife.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY:

My wife Alexandra and my daughter are in the gallery today. I'd like to

introduce them and to note that my daughter was born in Calgary at the

Western Economic Opportunities Conference about seven years ago. She

has been involved in this process for many years and is familiar with

the speaking style of the member who just spoke. Now that she's in

grade 1 it's always amusing to her to come into the House to watch the

ministers speak before she goes home and watches the world of

Hanna-Barbera.

I'd also like to talk in general terms —

because I know here we're speaking of the agricultural land reserve

under the minister's office vote in general terms — about that appeal

procedure that the previous members have been talking about as well.

I'm referring, Mr. Chairman, to the appeal procedure that was brought

in in 1977 and which allowed an appellant before the Land Commission

who had his appeal rejected and who couldn't even persuade two members

of the Land Commission that his case had enough merit to be considered

before the Environment and Land Use Committee.... Even if he couldn't

persuade two members of that Land Commission that his case had

sufficient

[ Page 2611 ]

merit,

all he had to do was go behind closed doors within 30 days to the

appropriate minister and get leave to appeal to a committee of cabinet.

It allowed — this is what we were concerned about and this is what we

brought forward in debate on that bill — a political appeal system to

develop, which is what we were concerned about. We don't mind having an

appeal system. It's good to have an appeal system, and an appeal system

was built into the act so that everybody who had a grievance against

the Land Commission or against the criteria which they use to judge an

appeal could always go farther, to the Environment and Land Use

Committee of cabinet.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's like going back to the judge that convicted you. That's hard for you to understand.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm not complaining about the fact that the act needs to be changed;

I'm just complaining about the way, in 1977, that it was changed to

allow a political appeal system. If the members opposite felt that an

independent authority was needed to sit in judgment on what the Land

Commission had previously decided, then they should have set up an

independent authority as an appeal on those decisions of the Land

Commission — not a political route into cabinet so that their friends

could get land out of the reserve while the rest of the people in the

province had to suffer under what the member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) calls "that oppressive system that seized

everybody's land and their rights in land."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You called it an oppressive system yourself.

MR. SKELLY: You called it an oppressive system.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one who's calling your own legislation an oppressive system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will call all members to order, and at this time I would like to....

Although

I am going to allow the member for Alberni to respond to what has taken

place earlier, our standing orders under Committee of Supply indicate

that the necessity for legislation in matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I'm making that statement

to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) and also to the member standing. However, because the subject

has been canvassed to some degree by the minister, the Chair will

certainly allow the member for Alberni to comment on that. Perhaps

after that we can get back to the administrative actions of the

minister whose vote is before us now.

MR. SKELLY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was simply discussing the appeal system as

it exists now. Obviously the members opposite feel there's some defect

in the system. In fact, the former Minister of Environment noted that

the system should be changed, and he stated, after granting something

like 40 leaves to appeal.... Without even considering the merits of

those appeals he granted 40 of them almost on a blank-cheque basis. He

recognized that the appeal system had been changed, and when the new

minister came in he said: "No, that's okay, we don't have to do it

anymore." He seemed to prefer the political appeal system even though

almost every group in the province that had an interest in the

protection of agricultural land held a joint press conference asking

the minister to make the Land Commission more independent, asking the

minister to remove the political avenue for appeals and asking the

minister to give greater support to the principle of the Land

Commission and the need to preserve agricultural land. Yet this

minister doesn't seem to have come up with those necessary changes that

would give us more confidence in the independence of the Land

Commission and more confidence in the government's support for the

preservation of agricultural land than we presently feel.

The

minister mentioned that when the land reserves were originally

established there were 11,661,000 acres in the land reserve. Then he

said: "Between the time of the establishment of the reserves and today

only 26,000 have been removed." But since the minister has the figures

at hand, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask him about the quality of the

land that was reserved, because he's entering upon the same logical

fallacy that's been used by the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet) in talking about the land that's going to be taken out of the

reserve in order to accommodate the Site C dam. Now he says that only

6,500 acres are going to be taken out of the reserve in the Peace

River–Liard Regional District, and he says in the total regional

district there are something like 3.4 million acres in the reserve; and

he says in the total province there are something like 11.635 million

acres in the reserve. But the fallacy in his argument is that some

areas of land in the reserve are much more valuable, the range of crops

that can be grown on that land is much greater, and the growing season

on that land is much more favourable. All of the land in the

agricultural reserve is not of the same quality and can't grow the same

range of crops as other land in the reserve. So he's using a logical

fallacy in order to convince his constituents that it is in their best

interest to take that land out of the reserve.

I'm wondering

if the minister is even paying attention, but I wonder if he will

answer the following questions. Of the 26,000 acres that have been

taken out of the reserve, how much has been in the Okanagan Valley,

some of the prime fruit-growing areas of British Columbia? How much of

that land has been taken out of the Saanich Peninsula and lower

Vancouver Island, again some of the finest farmland in the province?

How much of that land has been taken out of the agricultural land

reserves in the Fraser Valley — and now, Mr. Chairman, we're talking

about some of the finest agricultural land not just in the province of

British Columbia but in the world. How much of that finest agricultural

land has been taken out and lost to food production for the people of

this province forever? I'd like the minister to answer that question.

Because when the Social Credit members use the gross statistics — and

they seem to use whichever statistics favour their arguments — then

they tend to confuse the people. I'd like to know the specific

statistics for land that has been taken out of the reserve and the

quality of land that has been taken out.

Under this minister

we've seen processing plant after processing plant shut down in the

province. We've seen some sold out to the United States. It's the

Social Credit tradition of 1952 to 1972 all over again, when we lost

agricultural land at the rate of 20,000 acres a year, Mr. Chairman;

when we would write to the government and say, "Do something to stop

the erosion of agricultural land," and the Minister of Industrial

Development said, "everybody on

[ Page 2612 ]

our

side is against the loss of farmland, but they did nothing about it for

20 years. He said a lot about it, but they did nothing about it; for 20

years they did nothing. We would write to the government — this is

before I was in office and was concerned about the loss of agricultural

land. I have letters still from a Mr. Zacharias, who used to work for

the Ministry of Agriculture. He said: "Oh, yes, we're losing thousands

of acres in the Fraser Valley, we're losing thousands of acres in the

Okanagan Valley, we're losing thousands of the most productive acres in

British Columbia on lower Vancouver Island, but we're gaining thousands

upon thousands of acres in the Peace River. We're pretty much in a

stable state as far as agricultural land is concerned."

But,

Mr. Chairman, the land that we were losing in the lower mainland and on

the lower Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley, as I stated

before, was some of the finest growing land in British Columbia, in

Canada and in fact in the world, and we were doing a disservice

globally to allow that land to slip away, out of food production. I

would simply like to ask the minister about the quality of land we've

been losing rather than in gross terms the areas we've been losing out

of the agricultural land reserve; because in spite of what you may feel

about Social Credit or what Social Credit may feel about quality, it's

quality that counts.

Mr. Chairman, the whole agricultural

regime throughout the world is changing — at least throughout North

America — and the technology that we've enjoyed in agriculture is also

changing throughout the world and throughout North America. Agriculture

as a technology is one of the most totally energy-dependent

technologies on the globe; it's well known that even in minimum terms

we put sometimes three times as much energy into agriculture as we get

out in food energy. We use energy in the tractors; we use energy in

agricultural chemicals; we use energy-derived chemicals as fertilizers

and pesticides; we use energy to store and to transport food — it's one

of the most energy-intensive industries on the globe. We're going to

have to change, Mr. Chairman, because the price of energy is going up

dramatically. We cannot afford the same kind of energy inputs we've had

into agriculture in the past. The consumers can't afford it. As the

price of energy goes up, that energy price is reflected in the price of

food, and the consumer simply can't afford that rise in food value.

We're

going to have to do something about the way we handle agriculture in

the province of B.C. and in North America. What are we going to do? If

we take some of those energy inputs out, we're going to have to

increase the growing site because we cannot continue to supplement

those soils, using petroleum-derived chemicals. We're going to have to

use our land a lot more effectively and probably use a lot more of it.

In addition, we're not going to be able to transport food in the same

way as we have before — to bring it up from California in

energy-intensive refrigerated trucks. We're not going to be able to

transport food over the long distances that we've transported it

before. Remember that every hour that separates the time of picking any

particular fruit or vegetable from the time it's delivered to the

consumer's plate, you lose in nutritional value. Every mile, you lose

in the nutritional value. If we are to have good, high-quality,

nutritious food, we have to start growing more of it here, and we're

going to have to use more of our land base here in British Columbia to

support the food that our people are going to require. We're going to

have to cut back on the energy we use in pesticides, in fertilizers and

in the mechanization of agriculture.

There is going to have

to be a dramatic change. It's not going to come slowly. The changes in

energy pricing did not come slowly. We thought there was energy

abundance in North America right up until 1973 and 1974 when the OPEC

nations decided to chop it off and we were going to have to get a lot

less and pay a lot more for it. The same thing is going to happen in

agriculture, and we have to have policies in the Ministry of

Agriculture that prepare us for the loss of those food sources. One of

the primary policies is going to have to be the protection of that

agricultural land reserve that is so critical to our food needs here in

British Columbia.

The Socreds never have looked at it as

agricultural land. They've always looked at it as private, flat,

developable land that can be used for anything. I was at a planners'

conference in Prince George — in your riding, Mr. Chairman — on the

weekend and I was talking to a group of planners. Some government

planners were up there as well. They said the problem with British

Columbia is that 75 percent of the land is good for nothing and 25

percent of the land is good for everything. That's one of the conflicts

that we as a government, and as a legislature, have to deal with here

in the province of British Columbia. In agricultural terms, our problem

is that 97 percent of the land is good for nothing and 3 percent of the

land is good for everything. In that 3 percent of the land the Socreds

would like to see us pour all the housing, all the industry, and allow

developers to go full speed ahead in that 3 percent of the land and

neglect the one thing that we are going to need most over the long

term. That one thing is what you and I require to survive. It's food

that we need desperately here in the province of British Columbia.

What's

wrong is their short-term view of the world and their short-term view

of our requirements and the requirements of our children. That's

something that, through a constructive, educational opposition process

like this, we're trying to direct at the member for North Peace River

and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — a constructive form of

opposition, a responsible form of opposition. We're trying to persuade

those members of the folly of what they're doing and to persuade them

that the agricultural land reserve in the province of British Columbia

is one of the most important and valuable and rare resources that we

have here. I would just like to urge that on the members opposite.

This

is why the appeal system is so critical. This is why the appeal system

cannot be handled by politicians behind the closed doors of cabinet.

When I see what's happening in the south delta of the Fraser River,

when I see the value of the land that's going under the developers'

pavement, under housing and under industry.... Industry can locate

almost anywhere. Housing can locate almost anywhere. Highways can be

located — granted, at some cost — almost anywhere. But it is extremely

hard to find alternate growing land when we've already lost the best

land in this province. I would like to hear a promise from that

Minister of Agriculture. We heard a promise before from the former

Minister of Environment, who had jurisdiction over the Land Commission,

that it needed to be changed, that the appeal system needed to be

changed, that it had to be more independent in order to protect the

farmland.

Now that resolve to make the commission more

independent seems to have drifted away and now this minister, who is

one of the weakest links in the cabinet, seems to want to

[ Page 2613 ]

drift

back to the way it was before, when he could handle a few political

appeals here and there. That's not what we want in this province,

because we want to protect that agricultural land reserve. I'd like to

suggest to the minister that the Land Commission, rather than being a

group of political appointees, be selected from an all-party committee

of the Legislature. Democratize the process and bring it back into the

Legislature, as you did with the ombudsman, and we supported you. We

supported you on the auditor-general. Let's consider agricultural land

as important as the bottom line in our ledgers, and as important as the

way that the civil service deals with the community. Let's consider

agricultural land even more important, because it's a resource that

belongs not just to us but to our children. Let's appoint that Land

Commission through an all-party committee of the House. You don't have

to change the legislation; just pass a motion. Simply refer the whole

matter to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

You

do have to change the legislation in one way, though, Mr. Chairman. You

have to eliminate that political appeal system that has brought so much

discredit on the government, the minister personally and the previous

minister responsible for environment, who was also responsible for the

Land Commission when he was Minister of Environment.

closing, I'd just like to mention one last thing about Gloucester

Properties. In reconsidering the decision to take Gloucester Properties

out of the agricultural land reserve, I suspect the Premier called for

a second look. But he called for a second look under the wrong

section

of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, knowing that it was the wrong

section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think in view of the decision read by the Chair, you are at this point clearly violating the sub judice rule.

MR. SKELLY:

No. The minister said that references were not violating the sub judice

rule if they do not deal with issues being dealt with in court, Mr.

Chairman. I am not dealing with the issue that's being dealt with in

the court at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue involves jurisdiction of the cabinet.

MR. SKELLY: No. A ruling has already been made on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member is discussing the jurisdiction which is in dispute. It is

the ruling of the Chair that if the member would continue on the

administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us,

it would be greatly appreciated. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that I was referring in passing to a decision made by the court.

I'll

go on to what the minister's jurisdiction is now and what the minister

could do under

section 10(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

The minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, under that

section

and of their own initiative, can place any land within the agricultural

land reserve. That was the

section we passed initially in order to

create the reserves through cabinet in the first place. After the

regional districts and municipalities had advised the government, then

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could create the agricultural land

reserve of its own initiative. The minister, if he was really serious

about putting the Gloucester Properties land back into the agricultural

land reserve and if this government were to be really serious at the

cabinet meeting on Thursday, under

section 10(3) they could make a

decision that would result in that property going back into the

agricultural land reserve and remove the problems we now face through

the court proceedings. That is only if they were really serious about

getting that land back into the reserve, but I suspect, Mr. Chairman,

that what we're seeing is a bit of bafflegab going on by the

government. "Soft-pedal the issue. Let the courts handle parts of it.

Try to deal with it under the wrong

section of the act. Try to set up a

smokescreen for the public, and then slowly the people will lose

interest in it and the land will be lost to the agricultural land

reserve." If they were really serious about it, that could be done at a

special cabinet meeting right after this session. Enough of the cabinet

is out of the House right now that it could be done right now.

Read

the Land Commission Act, Mr. Chairman, and you will find that if the

government was really serious about putting Gloucester Properties'

application back into the agricultural reserve, they could do it right

this minute. But they're not serious. By putting it back in the reserve

it doesn't deny Gloucester the right to go through the whole appeal

procedure again. No hearings are denied; no rights are denied; no

appeals are denied. Gloucester could go through the whole process

again. But I suspect — I know, Mr. Chairman — that this government is

not serious about putting that land back in the reserve no matter how

much it may try to baffle the public by using inappropriate sections of

the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to recognizing the

member for Dewdney, I will once again remind all members of the House

that the Chair did allow some latitude to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and a reciprocal amount

of latitude to the member for Alberni in discussion of legislation

during Committee of Supply. At this point the Chair must once again

inform all hon. members that during Committee of Supply legislation or

the necessity for legislation cannot be discussed. Rather, we are to

address ourselves to the administrative actions of the minister whose

estimates are before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I stand in my

place to discuss and bring to the minister's attention matters

concerning farmers' market.... But before I do that — and I'll be very

brief — I cannot help but remark on the statements made by the hon.

member for Rossland-Trail. Such an impassioned plea for the food we eat

and the food we need.... Of course, there is nothing extra special

about that. We all need food and we all know that, but why the

impassioned plea? He talked about the finest land in British Columbia —

the finest land this government takes away. There must always be an

adjustment in land, where there are 336,000 square miles of land; there

must be adjustments made continuously in a place this size.

But

I want to tell him, talking about the finest land: who was it, may I

ask, that took away really the finest land — Tilbury Island — for

industry, right after they had declared their land reserve?

The problem, and the Leader of the Opposition, who he said would change the Land Act now.... Well, of course,

[ Page 2614 ]

nobody

would change the Land Act; it is a fact that it was done. But what that

act did do was destroy a plan of the previous government....

Mr. Chairman, you're looking at me with a sort of wistful look. Have you something to say?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I just addressed the House, and I thought I made it clear that we

really don't have the latitude in Committee of Supply to discuss

legislation, either future or past.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

But I'm discussing now not the Land Act per se, but the fact that the

members have brought this matter up and I have to reply to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I believe a good reciprocal debate with much latitude has been allowed

in the House, but now it would be the wish of the committee to return

to the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are

before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I bring up the point that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who would change the Land Act now.... That's a fair question.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to defend the member

for Dewdney and his right to discuss past legislation. The minister is

responsible for past legislation, and that's really the responsibility

of that minister, to properly care for and nurture that legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your comment and your point of

order. However, I will read from May's seventeenth edition. It talks

about relevancy in Committee of Supply and it states these are standing

orders. "The administrative action of a department is open to debate.

But the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." Those are our orders, hon.

member.

MR. COCKE: I certainly agree with May, and

who wouldn't? But we're not talking about future legislation. We're

talking about a minister's responsibility around legislation that gives

him his reason for being — his raison d'être.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I find it difficult to discuss agriculture and the reduction of land

for food without mentioning the Land Act. It seems impossible.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member continues, and in order. However, the necessity for

legislation was overheard by the Chair, and it was at that point that I

intervened. The member continues on vote 10.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I would be most happy. I tremble here at the might of the Chair. Where

do you go from here? If you wish to hold it that tightly, yes, indeed,

I'd be delighted. These estimates could be finished very quickly. But

if you wish to give a little latitude, that's fine. Whatever you say is

fine with me.

But I want to say this: our previous government had a far better system than

the Land Act. For example, the municipality of Pitt Meadows had already designated

its agricultural land and developable land; and the whole of the province could

have been done that way. But down came the NDP with the Land Act. It's as

if a doctor would say to me, "You must take this medicine three times a

day for one month." But I think it's so good I take it all in one day.

I would be destroyed. That's exactly what happened to that party, with their

Land Act and acts of a similar kind. It wasn't the purpose of the Land Act,

but it was too fast and too much at one time. The Land Act has a place in our

system, yes, but it was the wrong way to go. That's what I want to say to

you, Mr. Chairman. But I don't want to labour the point.

I've

come today to speak to the Minister of Agriculture about something very

important. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is within the policy of the

hon. Minister of Agriculture; if it is not, just say to me, "You're off

base," and I'll sit down. But I come to speak to him about farmers'

markets. I know that you're listening there very attentively. I know

that when you say to me, "You can't speak any more on the subject," I

must sit down. But the reason that you're telling me is because you

don't want to belabour these estimates too long. I admire your

position, and I'm thankful for what you're saying. But I will continue.

Mr. Chairman, have you something more to say?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair is here only to hear debate about the estimates

before us; it's that simple. It's in our rules of order. It's not here

to hurry debate or anything else, but to in fact hear debate on the

administrative actions of the minister.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's correct. But I want to speak to the minister about farmers' markets…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

…and I wish not to belabour the point. I wish to tell him what I think.

And I may not be right, but I have the right to say what I think.

That's the responsibility of the member for Dewdney.

MR. COCKE: Give it to them, George!

MR. MUSSALLEM:

No, I'm not giving it to them. I think he's doing a tough job. And I

think it's very hard being Chairman. I've sat in that chair many times.

I know some people I could mention cause a great deal of eruption

around here for the fun of it. Well, I'm serious in what I'm saying.

There

is not sufficient latitude given to the establishment of a farmers'

market in various municipalities. There's one friend and a good citizen

of Pitt Meadows who wants to establish a farmers' market. He finds it

absolutely impossible under the regulations that exist. Now if the

farmers' market could be established to sell farm products and any

products of the farm — whether it be the handiwork of the farm or the

products of the farm — they should be allowed to do so, and they should

be allowed to do so on agricultural land. But we have tied that

farmer's market up so tight that it cannot be done. I want to appeal to

the minister to change the act to make the regulations sufficient that

a man who wishes to take a risk in establishing a farmers' market for

the sale of the products of the farm, the handiwork of the farm, and

such things as that....

There are many people with skills

who can sell articles, but they can't sell them to anybody. How about a

4-H Club with five acres of land? Or a smallholder? Where's he going

[ Page 2615 ]

sell his product? To the marketing board? Well, that's just ridiculous.

We just have to have a possibility, if we have land in the land reserve

— five acres or ten acres — that they can produce a little of their

product and find a place to sell it. The only place to sell it is a

farmers' market within the area.

I'm just a little bit

displeased, not with the attitude of the minister particularly, but

with the regulations that hamstring people who are willing to risk

their money in establishing a farmers' market. But there is no way they

can do it under present regulations. There's no way they can do it, and

for this reason. Yes, you can have a farmers' market and you can have a

farm-gate market. Well, that's no good at all if you're one mile off

the road.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Certainly you can have one in the city. Of course you can have one in

the city. But what about a person who wants to establish a farmers'

market five miles, ten miles out of the city? If they're willing to

risk their money, they should have the right to try. They shouldn't be

entirely tied down just to selling the green products of the farm. They

should sell whatever they can get there to sell — not hardware; but if

a farmer can make a product, let him sell it; if a farm wife wants to

crochet, let her sell it.

It's all right for you to laugh;

it's mighty serious business. It's fine for you to think it's funny,

but I don't think it's one bit funny. I think it's about time we

recognized the responsibility of your department to see these people

have the right to sell their product. The five-acre man cannot sell his

product. The 4-H Club people cannot sell their product. They can play

around with a few sheep but there's no place to sell their product. I'm

telling you, you've got to change that. That is very important. For

four years I've struggled....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign! [Laughter.]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

That's all right. They think it's funny, Mr. Minister, but I don't

think it's one bit funny. I think it's serious. These people want to

sell their product and can sell their product, if they have a

marketable place to sell it. I've pleaded; I've gone to the Land

Commission; I've gone to the minister; I've gone almost everywhere, and

everywhere it's negative. I find even the municipality objects. It's

not a desirable area. We've got to move and leave openings for people

to be able to sell their products. Until something is sold, nothing

happens. There is so much to be sold, so much of the farm produce going

to waste because there is no market for it. I say to the minister that

it is time to stop these delaying tactics. Wherever the problem is,

whether it's in the Land Commission, the office of the minister, or

wherever, that's got to be changed. I have to put up a strong case or

there's no case to put up, except to say this: what about the people

with five or ten acres? What about the people who grow a few cabbages

or raise a few sheep? What about the lady on the farm who can crochet?

Where can they sell their goods? They could do that if they had an

opening. I know you can go into the city and sell it, but I'm not

talking about the city; I'm talking about the municipality of Pitt

Meadows or Maple Ridge or any municipality or any man who has the

fortitude to put his dollars on the line and say: "I can make this

thing go." There should be no bureaucrat who should be able to stand in

his way. That is what is happening at this time. I think it's time we

had a change.

I appeal to the minister. He knows what I'm

after. I've spoken to him many times. That's got to be changed. We're

meddling too much in the people's private affairs. We're talking about

private enterprise; let's have private enterprise. Let's not monkey

with this thing; it's gone too far.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I wanted to respond somewhat in regard to the Agricultural Land

Commission and the comments that were made. Dealing with the procedure

that is followed by people who wish to appeal to the minister or to be

heard in front of the Environment and Land Use Committee, as all

members know, the Environment and Land Use Committee, ELUC, has been

there for a number of years. During the NDP administration it was

there. If I recall, members of the cabinet sat on that Environment and

Land Use Committee. Is that correct, former Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's correct, but you're beside the point.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

So just for the record, the Environment and Land Use Committee is a

"political" committee. Members of the cabinet sat in judgment over

appeals of the Agricultural Land Commission decisions. That is what was

done before there was any change in the legislation. So the political

routine that the opposition talks about was there through their

administration as well as ours. The only difference was that the

amendment to the act changed the routine, so that when you applied to

the Land Commission and were turned down, you had one further step than

under the old act, which was: if you were turned down by the Land

Commission, you went back and got the signatures of two commissioners,

which allowed you to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

That was like going back to the judge who convicted you and saying,

"Will you give me the right of appeal?" The act was changed to say that

you could still do that — get two signatures from the commissioners.

Failing that, you could apply within 30 days to the minister for the

right of appeal. That is the only change. The decision of the

Environment and Land Use Committee was made under your administration —

no different under our administration. The only thing that was

different is that at least we gave the individual the opportunity to

apply to the minister for the right of appeal, as opposed to going back

to the judge who convicted him and asking for that right of appeal.

There is a little bit of difference, Mr. Member.

We just

want to point out to the members opposite, in regard to between April

1978 and March 1979, by regional district, in regard to leave to appeal

to the minister....

Because the members opposite would leave

you to believe that there is a tremendous movement of applications or

rights of appeal to go to the minister because this is all political

and all our ''friends" are going to get their land out. I just want you

to know that in the last year, between 1978 and 1979, there were 22

requests to the minister for the right of appeal. Of those, 4 were

refused and 12 were granted. Other than those, there were 9 that were

heard by ELUC and out of the 9, 6 were allowed by ELUC, 2 were refused

and one decision hasn't been made as of the date of this report.

When

you look at the comments that are made across the House in regard to

the tremendous abuse, as they like you to believe, of the appeal

procedure, you can see how many get

[ Page 2616 ]

the minister. If I can find it here, the requests for appeal to the

commission — and that's the two signatures.... In the years 1978-79

there were 39 requests. There were 2 approved, 28 refused and 8

reconsidered, and one had not been dealt with as of that time. So out

of the 39, the Land Commission itself reconsidered 8; that is, they

looked at their decision and reconsidered it. The numbers that go

through to the minister for the leave to appeal are very small in

regard to the total amount of applications for exclusion to the

commission. I just can't put my hand on it here, Mr. Chairman; I wish I

could find it quickly, because I could give an indication as to how

many actual applications go into the Land Commission per year. Maybe

during the rest of the debate by the opposition I'll be able to find

those figures.

The point I wanted to make was the small

number that reached the minister's desk for leave to appeal, the

smaller number that get beyond the minister to the Environment and Land

Use Committee, and the smaller number that get granted by the

Environment and Land Use Committee — very small, in relationship to the

number of applications made to the Land Commission and the number of

applications made to the minister for appeal. Many of those, for the

members opposite and for the record, have endorsement of the regional

district or the municipality. In many cases those are turned down.

Mr.

Chairman, just to move on to the farmers' market that the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) raised: first of all, any farmer can set up a

roadside stand and sell his own produce, as I think the member for

Dewdney knows. The question that the member raises — and I can

understand some of his frustration over the years — is: why can't an

individual set up a farmers' market? One of the problems with regard to

a farmers' market is that if they are purchasing produce not from their

home farmland, if they're purchasing it from another farmer, basically

under the marketing board system they have to go via the marketing

board to purchase it. That is done by any wholesaler; he buys from the

marketing board. That way the commercial farmers first of all can grow

the volume of crops required and then they can process them through

their co-op and through the marketing board, and the marketing board,

of course, can sell them to the wholesaler. Where you and I have some

difficulty is where somebody decides to set up not really a farmers'

market but a commercial operation where they are in effect displacing

product from the marketplace; they're just another retail outlet under

the guise of a farmers' market. In many cases they are offering, you

might say, cash, or they're purchasing agricultural crops without going

through the marketing board system, and in effect injuring the

commercial farmer to a great extent because they're displacing his

product from the marketplace.

So I have no objection to the

roadside stand, and I have no objection to the farmers' market concept.

However, I think they have to recognize that they have to work within

the system and can't have any special consideration, because if they do

we aren't resolving any problems; we are creating more problems. We

rely on those commercial farmers being there every year, and we rely on

the cooperative to have the cold-storage facilities and the packing and

grading facilities to ensure that the consumer gets a good product,

good quality, properly sized, etc. If you want to circumvent that

system that's been put into place and I think has worked very well to

ensure that the consumer has good value for his dollar — if you just

said anybody can set up a "farmers' market" — you'd cause more problems

that you would resolve.

I know the member for Dewdney feels

quite strongly about this. All I'm saying is that there are farmer's

markets in existence. I believe Courtenay has a farmer's market that

operates very well; a large volume of produce goes through it. There

are other farmers' markets throughout the province which work very

well. If they want to purchase product, they can purchase it from the

various packing houses through the marketing board system and provide

that good-quality product to the consumer.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

MS. BROWN:

In view of the fact that the member for Dewdney is going to fight on

behalf of women who crochet, I will defer to the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, that minister had the wrong idea entirely

about the farmers' market that I'm supporting. It's not a farmer's

market where the owner of the market brings in produce and sells it; it is where

a farmers' market has available maybe 50 stalls, maybe 100 stalls, that

any farmer could rent and sell his produce from. That's what I'm speaking

of — the farmer himself selling his own product or anybody selling his own

product. Not a large operation operated by one person, but there may be 100

retailers there.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In response, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that there is no

problem with what you say. As a matter of fact, in my hometown in

Penticton there is a farmers' market; and the owner of the building has

converted it into a farmers' market and rents stalls out for those

ladies who like to crochet, for people who bring their produce in. They

have their own booth and they can sell in that way. That's a commercial

operation; the man is a landlord and rents out the stalls.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, just in addition to the member for Dewdney, there are

actually a couple of farmers' markets which are owned by

municipalities. The city of New Westminster, I understand, owns and

runs a farmers' market and, I gather, so does the municipality of

Duncan.

However, I just wanted to respond to the minister's

statistics about the appeals to the minister, the ones that were

rejected by the Land Commission. I think that in fact the statistics

support the argument that the Land Commission was doing and probably

still is doing a very effective job, which is the reason why so few

direct appeals went to the minister's desk. The quarrel that we have

and the opposition that we have to this whole process is that once it

gets to the minister's desk, the decision is based strictly on politics

at that point. The decision made by the minister about whether to allow

the appeal or not had nothing to do with the agricultural value of the

land, whether it actually was class A, first class, second class or

anything. At that point we were dealing with straight political

decisions, and what we're saying in opposition is that agricultural

land is too important to be dealt with by straight political

decision-making, and that is our opposition to it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You did it when you were in office.

MS. BROWN: It is not possible, Mr. Minister, through

[ Page 2617 ]

you,

Mr. Chairman, to convince us that the minister is more knowledgeable

about the value of land for growing food than the Land Commission. The

members of the Land Commission are more knowledgeable, and they're also

more impartial and more unbiased. Their responsibility is to decide

whether the land is arable or not. Having made that decision, for the

minister to reverse that decision.... It can be reversed on one basis

and one basis only. Certainly when the present Minister of Health was

the minister responsible, as the member for Vancouver East pointed out,

he handed out these reversals like popcorn from a popcorn stand. He was

reversing every decision as soon as it came across his desk. He made a

political decision and reversed the decision of the Land Commission,

and that is precisely what we're opposed to.

I think the

basis of that, Mr. Chairman, is really a distorted perception about the

value of agricultural land, a lack of understanding and appreciation

for the value of agricultural land. The minister of small business and

inconsequential things, when he was speaking earlier, said his

government is committed to preserving agricultural land. But he never

was able to back that statement up with any examples, because in fact

all of the examples showed that the very opposite was happening, that

during the tenure of this government land was being released from the

agricultural land reserve at an incredible rate. And it was not being

released to be used in terms of the growing of food or in some kind of

potentially productive way for the people of British Columbia; it was

being used in personal and political kinds of ways. As the hon. member

speaking before said, of course there were a lot of promises and a lot

of statements made, but in terms of what actually happened, the

examples don't bear it out.

I think a part of the problem is

that we're dealing with the tunnel vision of that government, a

government that has absolutely no experience or understanding about

anything that's happening within the narrow confines of either their

own constituency or certainly within this province. They haven't looked

at other parts of the world; they don't really understand or appreciate

the importance of agricultural land in terms of feeding people. If they

were to take the opportunity to visit other parts of the world and see

how they treat their agricultural land, they probably would have a

better appreciation and a better sense of the value of agricultural

land and would stop treating it as a commodity that is just to be

bought and sold in terms of profit. You just buy it and sell it. You

just speculate in it, play around with it. The only value it has to

that government over there is as a way of making money, and that is not

the main value of agricultural land.

You travel to Italy, to

Rome, and you see that they never allow even their train tracks to go

across their arable land. Those are raised so it is possible for the

farms to continue unbroken underneath their train tracks. They realize

it is more important that that land grow whatever food is necessary for

their people to use rather than have tracks running across it. Yet we

have here, in British Columbia, the government making a decision, which

the Minister of Agriculture is endorsing and doing absolutely nothing

about, to run highways straight through prime agricultural land, as is

happening in Burnaby at this time where, in cahoots with and with the

support of the municipality, 20 acres of some of the most perfect and

richest agricultural land in the lower mainland was allowed to be

turned into Marine Way so that it could hook up with Annacis crossing,

which is going to be built to ensure that the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) runs again, because he threatened that unless that Annacis

crossing was built he was going to be