1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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, JULY 23, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11265 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

An Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone

(Bill M232). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

An Act to Ensure Sound Forest Practices on Private Land (Bill M233).

Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Forest Resource Inventory Act (Bill M234). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11266

Forest Waste Reduction Act (Bill M235). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11267

Oral Questions

Ethics advisory committee report. Mr. Harcourt –– 11267

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Mr. Miller 11268

Statement by general manager of Pacific National Exhibition.

Mrs. McCarthy –– 11268

Building of super-ferries. Mr. Sihota –– 11268

Point of Privilege

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Mr. Miller –– 11269

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 11270

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Jones

Mr. DeJong

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill 70).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 11299

Mr. Clark –– 11299

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 11300

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990 (Bill 34).

Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Mr. Blencoe –– 11300

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

(Bill 71). Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11300

Mr. Blencoe –– 11300

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11301

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 78).

Second reading. (Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11301

Mr. Clark –– 11301

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11302

Range Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 74). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11302

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11302

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11303

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 41). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet)

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 11303

Mr. Blencoe –– 11303

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 11303

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 11303

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Clark

Point of Privilege

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 11323

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 11323

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ms. Pullinger

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Speaker, today our Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) is 59 years

young. Will the House please join me in congratulating a very good

friend and colleague on his birthday.

MR. HARCOURT :

In the House today is Ken Abramson, his wife Jana and their daughters

Claire and Leah. Ken is on the executive of the New Democrat

constituency association for the new riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

Would you give them a warm welcome. They'll be here for question period.

MR. MOWAT :

I draw attention to the House that the former mayor of the city of

Vancouver, Mr. Tom Alsbury, passed away last weekend. Mr. Alsbury was

the mayor of Vancouver from 1958 to 1962. I'd ask the House to remember

the great work he did for the city of Vancouver and our province. I

would ask, if the House is in agreement, that the Speaker send

condolences to his family.

MR. SPEAKER : Is it the wish of the House that the Speaker send a message on behalf of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER : So it will be done.

MR. DAVIDSON :

Mr. Speaker, several years ago the unfortunate death of a member who

sat on both sides of this House, Mr. Passarell, and of his wife

resulted in a very complicated court case. Recently, Mr. Gary Lauk, a

former member of the opposition, successfully negotiated in court a

satisfactory settlement on behalf of the children of Mr. and Mrs.

Passarell. I would ask this House if it would take the time to express,

on behalf of this House, its congratulations to Mr. Lauk for a job

extremely well done.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : On behalf of

the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) I'd like to welcome three

constituents whom I met on the ferry on the way over this morning: Dave

and Gerry Imrie and their daughter Collette. Would this House please

make them welcome.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today I notice Richard Thomas from the B.C. Central Credit

Union. I'd ask all members of the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, visiting in the galleries today are three

members of the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group: Al Rycroft, Andrew Gage and

Suzanne Rose. Would the House please make these people welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Bill Smith of

Victoria, who has brought two visitors from California: Phil and Andrea

Spira.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, the Chair

presently has under advisement two allegations of breach of privilege

or contempt raised in this House on July 11, 12 and 16 last. It is most

unusual and unique that, while such matters are under consideration by

the Chair, so many subsequent events occur which may directly or

indirectly bear on the issues. I, of course, refer to the announcement

of the police investigation, the engagement of the Deputy

Attorney-General of Alberta, consideration by the ombudsman and

possible involvement of the Law Society of British Columbia at some

stage.

In addition to the alleged matters of contempt

placed before the Chair, there have been allegations of breaches of the

Criminal Code and the radio communications act and contraventions of

the Privacy Act. As a consequence, the Chair is very concerned that any

ruling by the Chair at this time might have the effect of breaching the

spirit and intent of the sub judice rule, although perhaps not

offending that rule as it is usually applied.

There exists

another unusual circumstance, in that the conduct of persons outside

this House, as well as members of the House, is interwoven in the

issues and is the subject of an inquiry and examination. Under the

circumstances, the question arises whether the House itself should

decide — or the Chair — if the spirit and intent of the sub judice rule

should persuade the House to temporarily withhold its own inquiries

while other inquiries into the same circumstances are being conducted.

The

Chair has been greatly assisted in resolving this question by a

precedent to be found in the journals of the Quebec National Assembly

of March 26, 1974. In that ruling, Monsieur le prsident — the Speaker

— held that while he had allowed a matter of privilege to be raised and

a motion to be announced, he would not allow the matter to proceed

further at that time, as it would involve a breach of the sub judice

rule. It is my decision to adopt the reasoning of le prsident of the

Quebec National Assembly under similar circumstances. Therefore, in

order to safeguard the rights of those who might be prejudiced by this

House pursuing its own remedies, and while at the same time other

processes are underway, I propose to withhold any further consideration

of the issues for the time being.

This temporary

disposition of the matter should not lead to the belief that the Chair

has any doubt as to the status of electronic surveillance per se. It is

imperative that it be universally recognized and remembered that

electronic surveillance, even though it may not be a breach of other

laws, is a grave contempt of this House. The statement has already been

made in this House: "Parliamentary democracies flourish only when

member and constituent can communicate freely, openly and candidly

without having the spectre of interception...interfering with

[ Page 11266 ]

such

communications" — Special Committee of Privileges, Legislative Assembly

of British Columbia, June 6, 1980. The activity of electronic

surveillance of a member subjects anyone so involved to sanctions of

this House.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains amendments to 13 statutes, covering a

number of different programs. The statutes covered by the bill are:

Accountants (Chartered) Act, British Columbia Transit Act, College and

Institute Act, Dyke Maintenance Act, Employee Investment Act, Fire

Services Act, Institute of Technology Act, International Financial

Business Act, International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act,

Municipal Finance Authority Act, Sechelt Indian Government District

Home Owner Grant Act, Small Business Venture Capital Act and Utilities

Commission Act.

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading.

Bill

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

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

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER :

This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes administered by

the Ministry of Attorney-General. These statutes are: Commercial

Arbitration Act, Court of Appeal Act, Family Relations Act,

Interpretation Act, Jury Act, Limitation Act, Offence Act, Regulations

Act and Supreme Court Act.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

AN ACT TO DECLARE BRITISH COLUMBIA

A NUCLEAR WEAPONS–FREE ZONE

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled

an Act to Declare British Columbia a Nuclear Weapons–Free Zone.

MR. PERRY :

Forty-five years ago, Albert Einstein stated that the splitting of the

atom had changed everything except our manner of thinking. He went on

to say that if we are to survive, we shall require a substantially new

manner of thinking. The majority of British Columbians agree with that

idea. In a recent poll commissioned by Greenpeace, 69 percent indicated

that they favour British Columbia becoming a nuclear weapons–free zone.

Some 66 municipalities representing two-thirds of the population of the

province have made such a declaration.

The intention of

this bill is to make the process complete for the entire province — to

recognize that nuclear weapons do not in fact protect life on earth but

hold over our heads a sword of Damocles that threatens our extinction

as a society and perhaps the extinction of most life on earth. The

opposition would welcome government support for this bill, which would

be consistent with the wishes of the majority of the population of B.C.

Bill

M232 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

AN ACT TO ENSURE SOUND FOREST

PRACTICES ON PRIVATE LAND

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ensure Sound Forest Practices on Private Land.

MR. MILLER :

This bill establishes a mechanism through which timber-harvesting

operations on private lands may be reviewed to ensure that good

forestry practices are followed and that no degradation of the timber

resource or general environment occurs as a result of the harvesting

activity. Under this act, the manager of every forest region in the

province will form a forest practices committee with members from

various levels of government and non-governmental groups. Every person

who plans to harvest timber from private land which is zoned for

non-residential use, or which is larger than five hectares and is not

classified as farmland, will submit a harvesting plan to the district

forest manager. The district manager will submit the plan to the

committee, which will approve or reject the application.

addition, the bill gives the forest practices committee the authority

to establish, with community participation, forest practice guidelines

for specific areas within the region where specific resource management

guidelines are needed. Appeal processes are established for decisions

of the committee on the approval of harvesting plans and on any forest

practice guidelines produced by the committee.

Bill M233

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

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

FOREST RESOURCE INVENTORY ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Resource Inventory Act.

[ Page

11267 ]

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that the inventory

work required under the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act is

undertaken thoroughly, with a comprehensive inventory completed every

ten years. Although inventories are presently required under these

acts, complete inventories have not been carried out in some areas of

the province for up to 20 years, due to budget and staff cutbacks.

This

bill also ensures that inventories of rangeland, ecological

classifications and water resources within Crown land will be updated

on the same

schedule as the timber inventories. The results of the

inventories are required to be published and made available to the

public at ministry offices in each forest district.

between complete inventories, the chief forester will be responsible

for noting logging activities and other forest depletion for the

purposes of keeping a current inventory.

Bill M234

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

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

FOREST WASTE REDUCTION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Waste Reduction Act.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces changes to provincial scaling

procedures which will lower the amount of harvested wood that is wasted

in the forests of the province.

Starting on April 1, 1991,

the district managers in each forest district will be required to

calculate a portion of stumpage based on volume figures obtained

through a cruise of standing timber rather than on the amount of timber

a company presents at a scale location. Under the system of scaling

standing timber, there will be a strong incentive to bring out as much

wood as possible so as to lower cost per metre of harvested wood and

hopefully result in better forest practices.

Bill M235

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

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

Oral Questions

ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about the

public's right to information, which is fundamental to our democratic system.

This government is frustrating that right by suppressing important information

that the public needs and deserves. Will the Premier today direct his Minister

of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) to release the ethics advisory committee report on

abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's nice to see it's Monday; the Leader of the Opposition is in the House. You can always tell the day of the week.

response to the question, we can very easily demonstrate that we have

had the most open government in the history of the province and perhaps

the country. There is, however — and I see the Minister of Health hasn't

quite arrived yet — a need for ministry people, particularly in Health,

Social Services and the like, to obtain from time to time reports on

various issues which require expertise such as the ethics committee is

able to provide. That's not to say that such information necessarily

always need be or should be used, but certainly it's a very necessary

tool, I believe, for government to have groups such as this that

ministries can call upon.

I expect that it will be a

decision for the ministers and the ministries, and perhaps one of

government, that if all such reports are made public, then perhaps from

time to time, possibly given the way they're presented, there may be a

reluctance by ministries to call for such reports. I'm not sure just

what. But I would ask that you pose the question to the Minister of

Health with respect to this specific report when he returns to the

House, which may be momentarily, and he would then, I'm sure, be able

to answer the question more fully.

MR. HARCOURT : A

supplementary. The minister has had the report for two years, so

obviously he's not going to release it unless the Premier puts that

request forward. I hope the Premier isn't simply going to ignore the

public's right to information on this matter. If he does, he must have

some very strong reasons. I'd like to know what it is about the

information in this report that prevents the Premier from releasing it

to the public.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I am sure that

one day when we both have the time, I'd be pleased to sit down with the

Leader of the Opposition and explain how, perhaps administratively in

various ministries, they require certain information from time to time.

I think they ought to be able to do this without fear of it becoming a

political issue each and every time such requests are put forth by them

— to whatever body of expertise. For this reason, I think ministries

ought to have some flexibility in that regard. However, that's a

ministry decision. I would suggest once more to the Leader of the

Opposition that when the minister returns to the House, he may want to

pose the question to him as to the specifics — or this specific report

and it’s release.

MR. HARCOURT : A supplementary

question. Isn't it the case, Mr. Premier, that this report was never

released because the ethics committee report recommendations were

contrary to the Premier's own personal views?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Those who serve on the ethics committee are certainly entitled to their views. I don't know specifically what the Leader of

[ Page 11268 ]

the

Opposition is referring to, but I gather from what he said that he has

some knowledge of the report. Obviously the report has some information

that may agree with his viewpoint but not necessarily mine, and

therefore he has requested three times already that the report be

released. I thought he wanted the report released for public

consumption and information and not for some personal reason. I gather

from the question, or the way it was posed just now, that he's

really.... That sort of re-emphasizes the point I made earlier about

these

reports being used for strictly political purposes. I would say shame

to the Leader of the Opposition, if that's your intent. My view is that

all people are entitled to their views.

MR. HARCOURT :

A supplementary. What we are talking about is the public's right to

know. This government's secrecy could be avoided if British Columbians

had a legislative act protecting their right to have this information.

Will

the Premier agree today to adopt, in the public interest, the New

Democrat bill, Bill M219, the Freedom of Information Act, as a

government bill? I can assure the Premier that he will get our caucus's

full support for speedy passage of the bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take all of question period repeating what

I've already said, but the questions appear to be repetitive, so I'll

do my best. Obviously, there's nothing urgent or pressing in this

province today, so we'll just keep repeating....

AN HON. MEMBER : That's good government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's good government. You're right.

can't speak about legislation that may be before the House, but I can

repeat that we have certainly seen in the last number of years openness

such as we've never seen in the province or country before, and I would

hope that we continue to have it this way.

I do realize

that from time to time ministries require certain information provided

them that may be for administrative purposes. They ought to be free to

ask for it, it should be available to them, and they should not be

discouraged from seeking such information.

I also realize

that oftentimes.... For example, the Leader of the Opposition is

suggesting that all things ought to be made public somehow. When you

are dealing with personnel matters, then we need to consider that as

well. Perhaps one day we'll get to debate this in more detail. I don't

think we should take up the time in question period today, except to

repeat that we want to see openness continue such as we've seen in the

last number of years.

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER :

To the Minister of Forests. With respect to the awarding of the

Takla-Sustut licence and the subsequent report by the ombudsman, would

the minister characterize the ombudsman's report as accurate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Going from memory, I think those were my exact words in the press release I put out on Friday.

MR. MILLER :

Supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Given the accuracy of the

report, does the minister then concur with the finding in the report

that the decision on the awarding of the licence was made by cabinet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Once again, Mr. Speaker, if the member would take a look at the press

reports that I put out, I'm sure he would find that that is exactly

what I said in my press report: the decision was made by cabinet.

[2:30]

MR. MILLER :

Further to the minister. Given that the purpose of the legislation was

to forbid political interference in licence decisions, and given that

the ombudsman has concluded that political interference did occur, does

the minister not agree that the government broke the law by politically

interfering in the awarding of this licence?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I would pose a question back to the member. Is it "political

interference" when a government makes a decision on behalf of the most

good for the most people in this province?

STATEMENT BY GENERAL MANAGER

OF PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MRS. McCARTHY :

This question is for the Minister of Tourism, who is responsible for

the Pacific National Exhibition. In a weekend report it was noted that

the general manager of the PNE expounded on day care centres as "places

where kids go to get brainwashed." As Mr. Thomas is an appointee of the

government to the Pacific National Exhibition board, his comments could

be misconstrued and could even be taken as a reflection of this

government's policy, which I know they are not. I want the assurance of

the minister and the government that they in no way agree with the

neanderthal statements that have been made. I would like to ask the

minister if he intends to censure Mr. Thomas on this topic.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I want to say for the

record that I personally and categorically disagree with the statement

that was made. It in no way represents the policy or position of this

government.

BUILDING OF SUPER-FERRIES

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. With respect to B.C. Ferries and the

super-ferries, tenders have now been issued worldwide, including Europe.

[ Page

11269 ]

On Friday last, workers at Versatile were told that management could

no longer assure them the work would be done in B.C. As a consequence,

rumours are rampant through the shipyards in Esquimalt that work with

respect to the super-ferry is going to be tendered and done in Europe.

Given the fact that this has generated a significant amount of

uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry, both on the management side

and from the workers, is the Premier today prepared to give this House

and the workers in the shipyards an assurance that the next ferry — the

super-ferry — will be built here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Obviously the industry is concerned, and I can appreciate that. They

wish to see as much of the work in the province as possible, and I

agree with that too. As well, I know that the minister has had a number

of meetings with people from or in the industry. We had one meeting

involving all of the industry and the unions right here in the

buildings, and I know that was very helpful. I don't know exactly how

they intend to tender these, what our own industry might best be

capable of or how competitive we can be. All that detail I don't have

available. All I do know is that when I was the mayor in Surrey, it was

the only time that a major contract for ferries went out of the country — and that was in 1973.

MR. SIHOTA : Although I was

only 19 at that time, I can tell the minister that the economy was

booming under that administration, and the shipyards were full of work.

That's what was happening in 1974. But today under this administration

there's an absence of work in our shipyards.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Does the member have a question?

MR. SIHOTA :

My question to the Premier is this. The Premier talks about concern for

the industry. That concern can evaporate if the Premier gave an

assurance today that the work would be done in British Columbia.

Could

the Premier offer this House an explanation as to why he is not

prepared to give the assurance that the work will be done here in

British Columbia? What, Mr. Premier, have you got against the shipyard

workers in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I

can appreciate how, as a 19-year-old, the member for Esquimalt thought

all things were fabulous. We can all recall Norman Levi shovelling the

money off the back of a truck, so I can appreciate how you viewed it

then. Again, I believe I have answered the question.

I should also mention to the member for Esquimalt that until we get

all of the information on the tendering — such as, perhaps, with

respect to individuals — we should give it some thought before

responding immediately.

Point of Privilege

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER :

I rise on a matter of privilege, namely that the former Minister of

Forests deliberately misled the House regarding the awarding of a

forest licence in the Takla-Sustut area of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER :

Members should be aware of the procedure involved in this process.

Could the member briefly make his statement, table any information that

he wishes to table for consideration by the Chair, and advise the Chair

that he would be prepared to move the appropriate motion if in fact the

Chair finds a prima facie case.

Has the member a motion that he would be prepared to move?

MR. MILLER : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to move a motion should the Speaker find a prima facie case.

MR. SPEAKER : It would assist the Chair if you would table that with the Clerk and state your matter briefly.

MR. MILLER :

I also will table the documents that I'll refer to, which are the

ombudsman's report of June 22, 1990, on this matter; a press release

issued on Friday, July 20, 1990, by the current Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) on this matter; and the Hansard debate for June 20,

1988, wherein this matter was discussed.

The ombudsman's

report states that there was an internal evaluation of applications for

a forest licence following the advertisement of such by the ministry.

The report states, on pages 2, 3, 4 and 5, that extensive reviews were

conducted by four branches within the ministry and two regional offices

of the ministry, and the report states that the four branches and the

one regional office recommended that the licence be awarded to

applicants from the western area, the Smithers-Hazelton area. The

report goes on to state on page 7 that the deputy chief forester, the

person duly constituted under the Forest Act in force at that time,

recommended that the licence be awarded to western applicants.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the press release that I referred

to issued by the minister on Friday which states that: "Under the legislation

then in effect, elected members were not able to exercise the decision-making

function." I would draw your attention to the words of the minister today

in response to my question: "That is exactly what happened." In other

words, cabinet made the decision. I now refer to pages 7 and 8 of the ombudsman's

report, which states that the cabinet made the decision to award the licences.

Finally,

I refer to Hansard for June 20, 1988, pages 5225 and 5226, wherein an

exchange took place between the former Minister of Forests and the first

[ Page 11270 ]

member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). There are two points. In the one

exchange, the member for Vancouver East said: "In the case of the Takla

and Sustut, was there unanimous recommendation, for example?" The

response from the former minister: "Recommendation basically by

consensus." The ombudsman's report deals extensively with that matter

and appears to suggest otherwise.

Finally, the former

Minister of Forests said: "Under the existing act, the chief forester

makes the decision, and under the amended act the minister would make

the decision." The first member for Vancouver East then said: "With

respect to the Takla matter, the chief forester did make the decision.

Is that the case?" The response from the former minister was: "The

deputy chief forester made that decision." That is quite contrary to

the facts established by the ombudsman's report and by the Minister of

Forests in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the

facts I have provided clearly establish that the former Minister of

Forests, although aware that the internal Ministry of Forests' reviews

recommended that the western applicants get the licence and aware that

cabinet — not the deputy chief forester — made the decision to award the

licences to Prince George firms, nonetheless misled the House to the

contrary.

I have an appropriate motion, as I indicated at

the outset, if you find a prima facie case that a breach of privilege

has been made. I believe that has been tabled.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. member, I have just one matter of clarification. Is the former

minister you refer to the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) or the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ?

MR. MILLER : The former minister is the current member for Skeena and the current Minister of Crown Lands.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. It assists the Chair in determining matters.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $279,190.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Hon. members, it is indeed a pleasure for me to present the 1990-91

estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am very proud

to be part of a government that has proven its responsibility year

after year in presenting not only another balanced budget, but a budget

that offers vision and leadership built on a stable foundation for the

1990s.

Mr. Chairman, the agriculture and food sector in

British Columbia is a $10 billion a year industry and is the

third-largest contributor to a healthy British Columbia economy. This

is comprised of $8.8 billion on the retail side and $1.3 billion in

exports.

Overall, the food industry is growing at 3 percent

to 5 percent a year in British Columbia. The environment is right in

British Columbia for future growth. This environment is a partnership

of the individuals, families and firms involved in our food sector and a

free enterprise government that, through its leadership, has instilled

the will to win in British Columbia's agriculture and fisheries sector.

Agriculture

Canada's latest forecast of realized farm net income reflects a period

of adjustment facing most provinces in Canada. They predict that for

Canada overall, the realized net farm income is going to be down by

some 22.5 percent. This is very severe news to most in the agriculture

sector. Certainly our neighbours in the Prairies are facing a reduction

that is really staggering. It is down 18 percent in Manitoba, down 30

percent in Alberta and down 67 percent in Saskatchewan.

The

global economic struggle between the United States and the European

Economic Community is the main cause of the situation, but even the

traditionally strong provinces of Quebec and Ontario will also be down

— Quebec by 3 percent, Ontario by 14. In some provinces it will mean a

progression of farm bankruptcies, high debt levels and a great

apprehension about what the summer will really bring.

British

Columbia farmers can expect to realize — believe it or not —

approximately a 23.3 percent increase in net income in 1990 over 1989,

according to recent Agriculture Canada forecasts. This is not an

accident, nor due to special programs, nor the result of artificial

conditions set by government. This is real wealth. Our industry — on

its own — has continued to diversify to satisfy new-niche markets

around the world.

[2:45]

B.C.'s

livestock sectors are forecast to show the healthiest projected gains

this year. Significant increases in receipts are anticipated for

cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, lamb and poultry. Low prices for feed

grain, such as wheat, barley, corn and soy beans, will likely decrease

expenses for livestock producers. Receipts for forages should increase,

and smaller gains are predicted for fruit, floriculture and nursery

products. Some losses are expected in the grains and oil-seeds sector,

and heavy rains have had an adverse affect on vegetable production this

spring.

British Columbia's tremendous diversity of

agricultural production has protected our provincial economy from the

devastating effects which low grain prices have had on the Prairies.

Despite financial pressures in a few specific sectors, the buoyancy

displayed in most areas of our food production should make British

Columbia farmers Canada's most favoured agriculturists in 1990. Hard

work, heads-up planning and innovation have placed us as Canada's

leaders in efficient agriculture.

[ Page

11271 ]

As leader in balancing the budget, in education for the future and

in economic development, British Columbia has led the country in

economic performances in employment, capital investment and consumer

spending — at double the national rate. The agriculture and fisheries

sector is a strong and contributing part of that particular success.

Our

prosperity comes from the dedication of the men and women in this

sector. I am honoured as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to be

able to stand in this House and point to the history of the farmers and

fishermen who have built this sector over the past hundred years or

more. It has endured and grown and contributed for over a century, led

by the values that come from the pride of being independent, from the

love of the land and the sea and from the equality and respect between

men and women that you find nowhere else.

This year my

ministry has put forward a budget that will continue to ensure adequate

food supply for British Columbia. It will allow for increases in

domestic and export marketing. It will reflect our commitment to

realize opportunities presented by an emerging global marketplace. It

demonstrates our commitment to provide those in our agriculture and

fisheries sectors with the tools to implement their own business plan.

It demonstrates our commitment to the consumers of British Columbia to

provide clean, safe and healthy food that will be competitively priced.

It demonstrates our commitment to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We

are not breeding an atmosphere of tax dependency that is always taking

and never giving back.

The world of tomorrow does not

reward failure and punish success. In last year's budget I announced a

$28 million Canada–British Columbia grape and wine agreement which

assisted our growers to adjust to the newly competitive market of the

nineties. This was a proactive, forward-looking plan extended to the

industry and supported by both provincial and federal dollars. Over 200

growers participated in the program. They reviewed their resources and

replanted for the future. Those who didn't participate were compensated

under the 1989-90 program.

What we have witnessed is a $28

million success in just one year, as this industry — mainly through its

own foresight and planning — has positioned itself to compete

successfully in the world. We will see this industry grow back from the

new varieties that will be planted. This action reinforces the new

agricultural industry and those with the will to win and succeed. The

majority of growers put their feet down and recommitted themselves to

the future of British Columbia. The ministry has allocated over $1.7

million to complete the grape vine pull-out and to assist in the

promotion and marketing of British Columbia premium wines. This is our

model for the nineties — our model for the agriculture sector in British

Columbia.

However, we also recognize that as well as world market pressures, crops are

at the mercy of Mother Nature. Drought, rainfall and pests are still a reality.

We must respect nature's power and forget neither its blessings nor its

potential for unpredictable disaster. My ministry has reviewed both our crop

insurance stabilization and national tripartite agreements to assure our food

producers that these safety-net programs will continue regardless of the negative

impact. This year we are negotiating more national tripartite stabilization

agreements on behalf of and in full partnership with our food producers.

This

year the gross benefit to the producer will be greater, as the cost of

the program decreases the pressure on farm income insurance. Everyone

wins with this program. The producers are moving toward a level

playing-field, consumers are assured of a food supply, and taxpayers

are reassured that farmers do not have their hands in government

pockets but are squared in a handshake of true, fair and equitable

economic partnership.

Our budget themes. The 1990-91 budget

reflects major themes that address trends in agriculture and fisheries

businesses as well as our responsibilities to the consumers and

taxpayers of British Columbia: that we have a safe and secure food

supply; that we have competitiveness in the marketplace; that we

provide service to our client groups; and financial stability.

I'd

like to just touch for a couple of minutes on safe and secure food

supply. Although faced with a more competitive world, we continue to

enjoy a reputation for excellence worldwide. Our record stands alone,

whether it is for our seafood, our meats or our fruits and vegetables.

British

Columbia produces a greater variety of quality food products than any

other area in Canada. We're not just providing nourishing food; we're

producing it in innovative ways with a greater-than-ever degree of

environmental sensitivity. Our food is clean, and with the programs we

are introducing this year, our standards will be higher than anywhere

in the world.

For years our consumers have been demanding

safe, clean food. Our agriculture and fisheries sectors have heard this

call. Many areas of the agrifood industry have been proactive in

responding to these trends in the marketplace by finding ways to reduce

the chemicals that are added to food. The greenhouse industry is a good

example. These growers have almost completely eliminated pesticide use

in some crops by using biological controls such as predator insects.

Integrated pest management, the agricultural strategy which

concentrates on biological pest control and genetic engineering to

reduce chemical requirements, is in fact the wave of the future. B.C.'s

apple growers stopped using Alar on their apples fully two years before

it was identified as a problem by either the Canadian or American

governments.

British Columbians want a safe and secure food

supply, and the agriculture and fisheries sectors are leading the way

in assuring a high-quality food product — food that is produced using

sound farming practices. The province is committing $2.5 million over

three years for a soil and water conservation program. These funds will

be matched by the federal government. British Columbia's contribution

during

[ Page 11272 ]

the first year of this program will be $0.5 million from the sustainable environmental fund.

addition, the Food Choice and Disclosure Act enables agribusiness to

work with government to develop standardized, credible labelling

systems and techniques. This act will give food producers the

regulatory means to communicate the superiority of their products and

processes to B.C. consumers. These initiatives by government and

industry will help to ensure that British Columbia retains and expands

its position in world food markets.

My ministry will

undertake to ensure that our supply and management system provides a

fair deal for both the consumer and the producer. It is my commitment

to British Columbia to provide a regulated marketing system which is

equitable and open and committed to fair prices. It means an assured

supply of food for local consumers first, and exports of any surplus.

We have a secure and fair food supply system in this province, and as

the minister responsible I intend to keep it the best system there is

in this country.

Our legislative programs will concentrate

on efforts to reduce and simplify our many acts and regulations that

have been built up over time. This government does not want business to

be choked by red tape. They want the agriculture and fisheries sectors

to spend their time competing for markets, not stagnating at the whim

of a bureaucratic system which believes that government must interfere

in every aspect of business.

The Ministry of Agriculture

and Fisheries is integrating the best of education and economic

development with respect and sensitivity for our environment. To

service these programs, the actual operational budget of the ministry

has risen by some 7 percent. Our complement of 416 full-time

professionals and support staff has successfully reduced our levels of

financial support to many farm sectors. In real dollar terms

Agriculture and Fisheries saved British Columbia taxpayers $12 million

over the previous year.

The Ministry of Agriculture and

Fisheries provides a variety of services. It is an economic development

ministry with programs to provide leadership and direction to 130

commodity groups. It is a regional development ministry with a growing

focus on our specific regional requirements and more than 25 field

offices throughout this province.

We will continue to be

responsive to regional needs and have allocated an additional $150,000

in fiscal '90-91 to establish a new aquaculture and fisheries office in

the Courtenay-Comox area. The total budget for aquaculture and

commercial fisheries will total $3.4 million.

are a

science and technology ministry, as farming and fisheries become more

complex from a technical and business perspective. It is our mandate to

understand the role of new technology for our industry and to assist

with this technological transfer to create stronger programs. One

example is our leadership in the dairy industry and its contribution to

B.C.'s agribusiness. New technological innovations keep our dairy

industry strong, and this year $589,000 has been allocated to the

dairy herd improvement services.

Our yearly budget for

extension and development has increased to over half a million dollars

to continue to provide the latest information and technology transfer

to help our sector stay competitive. The economic development of

British Columbia in all sectors must be based on the generation of real

wealth. Only through real wealth can the pitfalls of tax dependency be

avoided. There are many who feel that subsidizing in our sectors

represents, in some obscure way, assurance of wealth.

Currently

the United States and Europe are engaged in a subsidy war that is

having a global effect on the price of grain. Our grain sector in

British Columbia will once again produce a first-grade crop. But grain

prices are artificially low. Neither the treasury of B.C. nor that of

Canada is equipped to fight powers such as the U.S.A. and Europe. But

together we will help our grain-farmers to stay competitive.

Our

B.C. producers are now producing over 60 percent of the food needs of

all British Columbians. What I hear from citizens who write my office

is: "Where can I find more genuine B.C. food products? How do I know

that these imported foods competing against our B.C. foods are safe?"

This year my ministry will take action to meet the needs of both the

consumer and the producer. In partnership with the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, which represents almost 100 different commodities, we will

be launching the "B.C. Quality Grown With Care" campaign to promote the

economic and cultural contribution of our agriculture and fisheries

sectors, as well as identify and promote our quality B.C. products.

This program will reinforce in British Columbians the commitment to the

world's best-quality food, grown with care in an environment that is

looked after so that it will provide food for generations to come.

Ninety-one

percent of all British Columbians believe that it is important for

British Columbia to be self-sufficient in food production. British

Columbians also believe that food produced in British Columbia is equal

to or better than food produced elsewhere in terms of taste, freshness

and quality. Ninety-five percent of British Columbians believe our food

is of better quality, and in general they are willing to pay more

because of this quality. Government will commit $1 million to the "B.C.

Quality Grown With Care" program over the next two years. This will be

bolstered by contributions from the private sector.

This

year our ministry is expanding its market-development and trade sector

within the ministry. An additional $250,000 is going to be allocated

for trade programs to assist in the development of an informed attitude

and an understanding of the tremendous opportunities that are opening

up for us. This coming year our ministry is planning targeted-marketing

strategies that will encourage investment in our aquaculture sector and

newer expanded markets for our B.C. premium wines. The diversity of

these programs and their competitive thrusts strongly re-

[ Page

11273 ]

flect the industries they represent and a commitment to quality with care in all our products — "B.C. Quality Grown With Care."

[3:00]

have already mentioned Agriculture Canada's projected 23 percent growth

for British Columbia. But there are other positive factors. Farm income

in 1990 is predicted to be 21 percent above the previous five-year

average. The number of farm borrowers in arrears continues to decline.

The number of farm bankruptcies in 1989 was less than half the previous

five-year average. The farm-equity ratio is greater than 0.80.

The

challenge has always been to find the right support at the right level

to promote sustainable growth without interfering with the values that

have led this industry to accept the responsibility of their successes

and failures. Often in the world of the six o'clock news and the

evening paper there are many accusations about the financial stability

of our industry and the role of government. In displaying the problems

of various regions throughout North America, these perceptions have

often overtaken the fact of our viability in B.C.

The

recent report of Commissioner Lusztig was a bucket of cold water for

the fruit industry. Unfortunately it brought many growers face to face

with some of the harsh realities of the new, competitive global

marketplace. Some have suggested that this industry should be propped

up forever. Others have suggested that it should make it on its own.

But everyone wants to see it thrive.

I must point out that

the current situation of our tree-fruit industry is not without

precedent. Last year the grape and wine industry faced similar problems.

But as the result of thoughtful, committed partnership of industry and

government, the British Columbia premium-wine industry is now an

unfolding success story looking toward a prosperous and profitable

future. If the tree-fruit industry is to be vital and efficient at the

turn of the century, it must seek answers to three major questions.

What is our vision for this industry? Will it be here in five years?

Can we define a road map to reach this vision, and what will the

vehicle be to deliver this vision?

Based on industry

consultation, the Lusztig report and our own ministry expertise, we

have been able to answer the first question. We have articulated a

realistic vision for the Okanagan tree-fruit industry five years from

now. The industry will be a significant contributor to the economy and

quality of life within the Okanagan. Within the next five to ten years

the Okanagan tree-fruit industry will be restructured, retooled and its

produce repositioned. Based on worldwide intelligence and

consumer-driven market research, it will regain its positioning as a

supplier of world-class products to accurately targeted markets. It

will shift from a protectionist, cooperative model to a competitive,

free enterprise, market-driven model.

The tree-fruit industry will be self-reliant, with the dominant source of revenue

being the marketplace. In order to make this vision a reality, we will need

younger, better trained orchardists. The industry as a whole will have to utilize

more input from business professionals and community leaders. These younger

orchardists will have to be better trained; they will have to work in larger

and more efficient operations, and they will have to be more competitive through

versatility and ability to adapt quickly to changing consumer demands. Their

business decisions will be based on the best possible market intelligence, and

their operation of this revitalized tree-fruit industry will shift from debt

to equity financing.

The

government has had an opportunity to completely look over the Lusztig

report. The vehicle we believe will be important to deliver what we see

as a future for the industry in the Okanagan over the next decade is a

tree-fruit authority. The corporation we are envisioning would be given

the legislative mandate to implement an efficient and coordinated

approach to the transformation of the Okanagan tree fruit industry.

partnership with growers, processors and marketers, it will ensure a

strong future of economic growth and sustainable development. The

authority will be empowered to buy, sell or lease agricultural land, to

borrow and lend moneys and to commission research. It will be expected

to facilitate orchard renovation and replanting and grower retraining

or relocation programs. This active long-term partnership of

orchardists, processors, the community and the tree-fruit authority

will be strong evidence of this government's commitment to the people

and the way of life in British Columbia's interior.

One of

the main tasks of every Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is to

constantly remind all British Columbians that food does not just

happen. Food does not come from the grocery store or the restaurant.

The food we eat in British Columbia is a product of the land, the sea

and the men and women who work to raise the food and give that special

association with Mother Nature.

As I have mentioned before,

high technology is rapidly affecting the way we grow food in B.C.

However, there is still the basic requirement that we respect and work

together with the land and ocean environment that is the source of our

wealth.

It is often difficult for mankind in general not to

feel totally omnipotent in this modern world. We can control almost

anything; we can create marvellous tributes to our progress. We do in

fact control the world. But that breaks down when you turn to the

basics of our food supply, that are only partially within our control.

The weather, droughts, pests and fire are all still very real threats.

The only difference between other businesses and agriculture and

fisheries is that if natural disasters hit this sector, people just

don't eat.

This not only affects the food supply, but also

places the financial security of the industry in a great state of flux.

The financial stability of the aquaculture industry is constantly being

challenged — more often by factors beyond the producers' control.

[ Page 11274 ]

Financial

programs of the ministry are designed to reduce farm losses and income

fluctuations caused by natural hazards and unpredictable market

conditions and to stimulate industry development. While realizing the

recent plight of the east coast fishery and the $584 million bail-out

the federal government has constructed for that region of the country,

I count on the federal government to negotiate with British Columbia

with the same no-strings-attached program. One thing is certain: this

government will never allow the type of mismanagement in the B.C.

fishery that we have seen on the east coast.

As my ministry

supports our moves to remain flexible to the shifts in our economic

structures for agriculture and fisheries, and with the implementation

of the NTS systems that reduce this government's share of farm income

assurance, the tax load will be fiscally adjusted to reflect the 5.7

percent reduction in financial assistance funding in the fiscal year

1990-91.

The good fiscal planning of this sector and

management of our financial programs to meet all the outside demands

and the strength of our sector reflects our commitment to balance the

budget and not create the heavy tax burden that will take generations

to pay off.

This year the ALDA programs have been expanded

in a major and exciting way to include environmental initiatives and

business opportunities for the farming and aquaculture community.

Management plans to help farmers address serious soil degradation

problems and ensure that we keep our production topsoil for the food

needs of future generations are now included.

This year our

commodities specialists will complete a strategic plan with all our

main commodity groups to assist them in their operation. As well, our

interministerial initiatives will help bring together our products with

programs targeted at markets outside the country to continue to build

on this industry's $1.3 billion export contribution to B.C.'s wealth.

New investment funding is being recruited in our aquaculture program to

tell our amazing story and to track the capital needed to expand the

products from an aquaculture sector with a worldwide reputation for

diversity and quality.

We are constantly working to

modernize and simplify our systems to serve our customers. This year

our crop insurance program is fully computerized and our services more

cost-effective than ever before. Our service to our stakeholders and

business partners is establishing a model to demonstrate that this

government is not wasting taxpayers' time and money on control and

regulation, but building accessible systems for enterprise to grow and

be free of bureaucracy, and be profitable.

The Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries recognizes its role in the daily lives of all

British Columbians as the provincial ministry responsible for food. The

farmers, fishermen and food processors of this province take pride in

supplying domestic and international markets with the highest quality

food available anywhere in the world. This ministry will continue to

encourage and facilitate agribusiness's ongoing challenge to remain

competitive and efficient well into the next century.

MR. BARLEE :

Perhaps I should preface my remarks, as I did some time before — in

fact, last year — by saying that although the minister and I are on

very cordial terms, my views of the agricultural community sometimes

are almost diametrically opposed to the minister's.

should mention that when I first came into the House, when I went down

to the members' dining room there were very few British Columbia wines.

With another current minister — of course, on the government side — we

managed to get some Okanagan wines. But I see that the problem has not

been solved. I went to the Empress today and had some curry, and I

asked if the curry was British Columbia lamb. "No, no," they said,

"it's New Zealand lamb." So I'll probably have to go back to the

Empress and make sure they put British Columbia lamb on the menu. We

have a long way to go.

There are certain things that I have

definite concerns about. I would concur with the minister that

certainly $1.1 billion in annual receipts is fairly important. I also

think that the industry itself doesn't have the fluctuation of other

industries, such as forestry and mining, which hit highs and lows. We

tend to get a steady return from agriculture.

But I think

there's something else that the minister has perhaps missed. The

agriculture community provides more than just food. Food is very

important, and an independent source of food is very important. The

agricultural community provides a quality of life that we have to be

very careful to protect, and I don't think we've done that. I'll give

several reasons for that.

In the last few years we've lost

about 60,000 acres of agricultural land; that's about 100 square

miles. And here we are only trying to protect approximately 2 to 4

percent of the land mass of British Columbia. So that hundred square

miles is quite important. Out of that hundred square miles, slightly

over 20,000 acres were prime agricultural lands. These prime

agricultural lands have been paved over, so there's no return from

them. They're gone. I think that's extremely important.

Another

thing that bothers me — and a number of things that we'll touch on

today, as we canvass this subject — is that the old rate still goes on.

There is one farmer going broke every day in British Columbia. This has

continued for the last decade or so, and it probably hasn't changed too

much. One of the things I am concerned with is the agricultural land

reserve. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

There

are other civilized countries that have our equivalent of the ALR, as

the minister well knows, and they have been extremely careful to

protect their agricultural lands. I would like to know, in figures —

either acres or hectares — how much land within the ALR was lost from

the beginning until the end of 1989. How much land was taken out for

golf courses,

[ Page

11275 ]

highways, urban projects or something like that? I'd like the

minister's comments on that. Surely he'd have those figures at his

fingertips.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Whether I have the

exact figures, I'm not sure, because it depends on several applications

that are before the process and on some that have not been finalized. I

can tell you that 60,000 hectares have not come out, that I am aware

of — certainly not in 1989. I think you're talking about since the

inception of the land reserve, which goes back to 1972 or 1973. I don't

believe very much, that I can recollect, of that 60,000 total you are

referring to came out in '89. There was some redefining of boundaries.

There was the fine-tuning process that changed, by order-in-council, a

lot of regional district boundaries — for what would be kept in the

agricultural land reserve and what would be best taken out. That was

done by the Agricultural Land Commission, and the recommendations were

made for the orders-in-council. That was the consultative process that

took place between a lot of those communities — the fine-tuning process

of where agricultural land should be kept and, of course, at the same

time, taking a look at community plans where communities were expanding

and asking for consideration of which lands were preferred for

agriculture and which lands could be defined for other uses.

[3:15]

100 appeals to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion — if I

remember the figures correctly — I believe close to 96.6 percent are

handled by the Agricultural Land Commission. The vast majority are

handled by the commission. The ELUC appeals amount to about 3.36

percent; it's not a very big percentage. If you take a look at the

amount of land that's dealt with from the point of view of the ELUC,

the appointed committee of cabinet, it is a very small percentage of

the total of the applications that actually come forward to the

Agricultural Land Commission.

I can provide you the figures

for 1989. I can have staff look that up, but it would require a call to

the Land Commission office in Vancouver.

MR. BARLEE :

I thank the minister for his answer, which, of course, wasn't precise,

and that's all right. Perhaps at the same time the minister could give

me the approximate acreage. By the way, I did not say "hectares"; I

said 60,000 acres since the inception. Hectares, of course, would be

two and a half times as much.

Perhaps the minister can give me the approximate acreage taken out of the ALR

since the order-in-council of June 1988 that allowed golf courses to be taken

out of ALR lands. I'm rather concerned about how many of those acres taken

out for golf courses were prime agricultural land. Thirdly, I am inclined to

look at some of these proposed golf courses as very thinly veiled condominium

developments. What percentage of each acre is allowed for condominium development?

That's a very important question.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

If you look at order-in-council 1141 — if I remember the number

correctly — it allows for use for a golf course within the ALR. It does

not allow for the land to come out of the agricultural land reserve. We

ought to be very clear on that. There is some feeling out there that if

you have a golf course, the land is automatically out of the ALR. But

it isn't. The order-in-council does not allow it to come out of the

ALR. It's a use that's allowed within. If for any reason that land is

required for future food production — albeit, it may be expensive to

convert — it is there to do so, because it's still classified as part

of the ALR.

MR. BARLEE : I think the minister misses

the point. If there's condominium development on those golf courses,

it's very difficult to put them back into growing something, and I

would think it would be extremely expensive. Does the minister or his

staff have any way of monitoring these thinly veiled developments which

are still in the ALR?

Say, for instance, I just put up a

quite an expensive building in Penticton, and I noticed that behind my

building they were building dozens of condominiums on the old Penticton

golf course, which we'll say is another golf course within the ALR.

What is the percentage?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr.

Chairman, I don't have that number in front of me, but I'm not so sure

that the Penticton golf course would necessarily have been in the ALR.

I'm not aware of any of those under 1141 that would have a subdivision

proposal that would be accepted by anybody, because the five conditions

laid out in the order-in-council state that you cannot do that. I'm not

fearful, quite frankly, of that changing, because if there is pressure,

the act is pretty clear and the order-in-council is pretty clear: it

stays in the ALR. You can't have a condominium development in the ALR.

Under the Municipal Act, you would require zoning changes, because you

couldn't do it in the ALR. There's a maximum number of residences per

parcel — one or two homes — within the ALR. Therefore you could not do

it under the Municipal Act.

MR. BARLEE :

Do you think

that ELUC, the Environmental and Land Use Committee, should still be

ruling on between 3 and 4 percent of the appeals to the Agricultural

Land Commission? I think that should stay in the hands of those

professionals, but this practice is still going on. And it seems to me

— and we touched upon this last year — that there were certain

individuals, such as R.J. Bennett, brother of the former Premier, who,

without much difficulty, can get a number of parcels of land out of the

ALR by an appeal to ELUC. What is the minister's stand on that? Do you

really think that ELUC, which is essentially the inner cabinet, should

be overruling or interfering with the decisions of the Agricultural

Land Commission?

[ Page 11276 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I'm not aware of that particular person's parcel of land coming to

ELUC. I've not been made aware of it, and I don't think that was the

case. I believe the Agricultural Land Commission itself made the

decision on that.

As far as ELUC making decisions is

concerned, I guess you're suggesting that the Land Commission should

have the final say; I assume that's what you're driving at. They do

take care of very close to 97 percent of it and that's a large

percentage. I guess if you go to court and you don't have a right to

appeal, you live by the final decision. Every process should have an

appeal. Whether ELUC is the right route or not, I wouldn't want to

speculate that there might be at some point some better way. That would

be future policy. I do understand that the vast majority of the

decisions are made by the Agricultural Land Commission, and when ELUC

makes a decision, it's really made in consultation with the

Agricultural Land Commission, to understand their position on it.

MR. BARLEE :

I'm interested in the minister's answer, in that he gave a little

ground on this. Any appeal should not be with a political body; it

should be entirely separate; it should be an independent body. If it's

96 percent, why not go the full 100 percent? Let the Agricultural Land

Commission operate entirely independently, without any appeal to a

political body.

However, we'll take perhaps an abrupt turn.

Let's get onto the free trade issue. The impact of the free trade

agreement — and your party voted unanimously for the free trade

agreement when it was presented several years ago.... What is the

minister's assessment of the impact of the free trade agreement on the

farming community?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It wouldn't be

the first time I've said that we knew there were going to be some

problems from the horticultural sector point of view We've argued hard

and long with the federal government. As the hon. member knows, I in my

capacity as minister responsible in British Columbia and several other

ministers across Canada have stated very emphatically that, even with

the duties, surtaxes and so on that were applicable in some cases, and

the agreement for the most favoured nations, etc.... We knew that in

the phasing-in of the reduction of duties over the next ten years there

were going to be some difficulties in some sectors. That was made very

clear to the federal government in the discussions that were going on

in the bilateral trade negotiations.

In the case of a lot

of the vegetable crops and some of the fruit crops, there will be some

harm. But there will also be a lot of opportunities. There will be

opportunities for growth in a lot of the sectors. I can tell you, if

you take an overall assessment of free trade, there is opportunity for

growth in the cattle industry and in the grain sectors. There is an

opportunity for enhancement and for jobs for more and more people

involved in it.

It has to be understood that when we are

dealing in a bilateral agreement.... You only need to expand a little

beyond that and look at GATT. You have a General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade that says that there are 95 countries trying to reduce

boundaries that are stagnating freer trade. Those boundaries in some

cases are non-tariff barriers, and in some cases are obviously tariff

barriers. You can talk about subsidies and about trade barriers. There

needs to be a clear look at where we can do best in agriculture. Given

the same competitive capabilities as some of our trading partners,

agriculture in British Columbia, and in Canada for that matter, will be

able to compete in a lot of sectors. Beyond that, there are specific

sectors, as I said a moment ago, and possibly as you may well have

heard yourself.... We do see some — if I can use the word — spotted

areas of concern relative to the horticultural sector.

MR. BARLEE :

The minister is making a tacit admission that there are sectors of the

agricultural community definitely at peril. He mentioned there were

some vegetable growers and berry growers — and of course, soft fruits.

What about the milk producers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The

milk producers and poultry producers — if I can cover eggs, turkey and

chicken — will certainly rely on the sustaining of

article 11 under

GATT. In the discussions that are going on in the Uruguay round, which

hopefully will be wound up somewhere near the end of December, it will

depend on Canada's defence of

article

Article 11 was granted to

Canada to provide for supply management systems. It was grandfathered

in the bilateral trade agreement but will certainly be under challenge,

in my opinion, in the Uruguay round that we're now undertaking.

have said very strongly and emphatically that British Columbia and

several other provinces should be part of those presentations whenever

they are held in Geneva. It's extremely important that we respond to

the concerns expressed by our agricultural sector. We are asking the

federal government to give us the opportunity to be part and parcel of

the discussion.

MR. BARLEE : Our past record on the

defence of articles under GATT has been very dismal. Our defence is

extremely porous; it's like a bloody sieve. We always lose. We are the

junior partner in this. When the United States wants something, they

invariably get it.

I'll give you an example. Here's how the

dairy industry is doing since the inception of the free trade

agreement. It is estimated that as much as $72 million annually is lost

to the dairy industry. That's $1.5 million a week. What they say is

this: the lost income to B.C. dairymen and the lost jobs at processing

plants are an extremely serious concern to the industry. And indeed

they are. The minister's missed the point.

Let me give you

a couple of figures about the crossings. The crossings are brutal. We

have people working in British Columbia going across to the United

States — they call them the gas and milk

[ Page

11277 ]

crossings — since the free trade agreement came into effect. In

March, April and May of 1988, 53,000 cars per annum went across the

border crossing at Pacific Highway. It's now 121,000 cars per annum.

At Aldergrove, it was 45,000 cars in '88. In '89, it's 75,000 cars,

These crossings have jumped from 400,000 to almost 600,000 in one

year. And that's not the end of it.

[3:30]

The

industry is complaining that the reason people are going across the

line is the cheap price of gas. But I'm saying that this government

benefits from that. Sure, the dairymen lose $72 million, but the

government gains. Why does the government gain? The government gains

because this government — who say they don't tax consumers — taxes them

to the blasted hilt. This government charges more per litre than the

federal government, and they're greedy as the devil. The federal

government charges about 11 cents per litre; the provincial government

charges 12 cents. That's 23 cents between the two of them. Is there

some tacit agreement between the oil companies and the provincial and

federal governments? I can go across and buy Shell gas in the United

States for 32.9 cents; I come to Victoria and pay 59.9 cents.

What

does Shell make on it? Well, let's examine Shell's role. Shell makes a

gross average of 37 cents a litre in Canada in Canadian funds. What

does it make in the States? It makes 24 cents a litre, so it's making

13 cents a litre more. Instead of paying 59.0 for unleaded gas in

downtown Victoria, you should be paying 46. Is there some sort of

agreement between the multinational oil companies and the provincial

and federal governments? It sure looks like it. Every penny of that tax

produces $25 million or $26 million in direct revenue to the provincial

government. So that 12 cents is producing about $250 million, if my

figures are close. I got several figures from the ministry; they varied

somewhat.

I am saying that you are penalizing the dairymen

We're letting these people pick up gas in the States because you're

making $250 million. So what if the dairy industry is losing $72

million? So what if Canadian jobs are going down the drain? This

government is making $250 million on charging our consumers a heck of a

lot more than they should be paying for gas. I'd like to hear the

minister's comments.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I hope the

hon. member opposite appreciates that some of that gas and oil may well

come from underneath a farmer's field somewhere in this great North

American continent of ours.

I would also like to point out that if we are to provide the

services required for the people of British Columbia, whether it is

health care, education, social services, housing.... You can go on and

on and on. How on earth do you expect to raise the revenue to supply

those services? They don't come out of pie in the sky, let me assure

you. It's got to be generated from some source. If we are to continue

to provide what I believe to be a good service to the people of British

Columbia — we have a health care system that is great; we have an

education system that is excellent — then I believe it requires funding

to administer it. Whether it's gasoline taxation or smoking taxation —

whatever the taxation revenue is, whatever source it is from; income

tax or whatever — there has to be a balance between taxation and

expenditures. Some of that taxation on gasoline, I am sure, from the

point of view of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, is

probably put towards the construction of highways.

Let

me assure the hon. member that as for the milk and the dairy products

he talked about, and probably the poultry products as well, the federal

government has a responsibility if it insists that it be done. That's

the point we have tried to make as a government — that there are duties

that should be paid.

I have argued long and hard that

people who have goods to claim should be in one line, and tourists

coming to enjoy the facilities of beautiful British Columbia on a

holiday or whatever — it may be on business — please let them come

through. But for those who go down to try to save money on gasoline, on

food.... I think it has to be fair. You ought to try to do it the other

way: you'll not get very far. Just to try to find out, I have tried to

take product the other way. You can't, because they'll take it away

from you.

Why in the world is the Canadian government not

doing the same darned thing? They have a right to collect duties, and

they should do so. I really strongly believe — and have fought for this

for my whole tenure in this ministry — in having fairness in the system.

We expect everything as British Columbians, and God help us, I hope we

can keep it up.

It would be nice to continue the services

we've been able to provide for British Columbians. We must not lose

sight of the fact that there is a cost involved in doing so, and it's

generally through taxation.

MR. BARLEE : I think the

minister is masking the issue and really missing the point. I'm asking

why Shell Oil, Exxon or Texaco make 13 cents a litre more in British

Columbia. If you take that 13 cents a litre off, you're going to cut

the cross-border traffic down to a trickle. If people can get gas at a

reasonable price in British Columbia, which they're not getting,

they're not going to go across to the States. That's quite obvious.

I'm

saying that there must be a tacit agreement between the provincial

government, the federal government and the multinational oil companies.

They used to say, when the price of gas went up.... They used to put it

right on their pumps: this is such-and-such a tax. They never do it

anymore. I was talking to one of the dealers in the Okanagan the other

day, who shall go unnamed. He said: "Bill, every time the provincial

government puts its tax up 1 cent, we put it up an extra 2 cents." So

they're part and parcel of the whole agreement.

It's not

only hurting the agricultural community. It's hurting the tourist

industry, and it's hurting it badly. I talk to many American visitors

who come across the line. They can't believe the price of gas and

[ Page 11278 ]

oil.

I'm saying that if I were minister, I would have been on them like a

flash. I would be on Shell Oil; I would be on Exxon. I'd ask them:

"What the heck are you doing? Where is this unwritten agreement?" There

must be an unwritten agreement, because the prices are diametrically

opposed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I certainly won't debate

that. I don't think it's part and parcel of my estimates, but I'll

certainly pass those comments on to the minister responsible.

MR. BARLEE :

I'll come back to the minister on a different tack. The minister

alluded to the marketing boards. Everybody seems to have a marketing

board, but this government seems to be a little loath to accept some of

the marketing boards in British Columbia, saying that the consumer

suffers. I think that an orderly marketing scheme is important. Was the

minister, for instance, in favour of disbanding the Milk Marketing

Board last year, as was indicated in those hearings? I am curious to

see what the minister's stand was on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Would the hon. member please define what hearings he was referring to? I assume it was a task force.

MR. BARLEE : That's correct.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Thank you. The clear answer is no, I'm not against marketing boards, and we were not trying to get rid of them.

MR. BARLEE :

If you weren't trying to get rid of them and if you're not against

marketing boards, why was the task force undertaken? Certainly the

dairy industry didn't want it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The

task force was structured to see what opportunities would be made

available by discussing some different proposals relative to supply

management. Where else could we possibly expand our market

opportunities? That's basically what the task force was trying to do —

take a look at other opportunities for our industry: was there

potential for new product development. There was no intention to do

away with the marketing board.

MR. BARLEE : The

Lusztig commission report suggested that this government not back the

national marketing scheme for apples, and yet according to the

government communique of that day, this minister stated that he was

almost in complete accord with the findings of the Lusztig commission.

One of their major points was that this government should not back a

national marketing scheme.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I

certainly will not comment on what Mr. Lusztig thought, or what he

thought would work relative to his recommendations. I expressed my own

point of view that I would like to see the fruit growers address how,

particularly in their sector, you would define which orchards would be

part and parcel of supply management and which ones would not, and how

you would define how much of one particular variety of apple you would

put into a supply management area as opposed to other varieties. It

would be quite a task when the supply and management system could only

look after the domestic consumption of Canada.

MR. BARLEE :

I was listening quite carefully to the minister, and he said he had a

success in the vineyards industry. Approximately two and a half years

ago there were 3,500 acres in the Okanagan and Similkameen

Valleys — central Okanagan, the southern part of the Similkameen Valley

and the southern part of the Okanagan Valley. These individuals were

doing very well. With the onset of free trade, those 3,500 acres

shrunk to about 1,200 acres, so approximately one-third of those acres

of those vineyard operators are left. Admittedly there was a buy-out,

but the buy-out does not help the cause of agriculture generally,

especially when I find that the government didn't do its homework.

And

I'll tell you why it didn't do its homework. There was a study at the

Dominion research station in Summerland by a Dr. Helmut Becker, who is

a West German scientist acknowledged as one of the leading experts on

white wine in the world. This individual, who has made a lifelong study

of this, stated that because of the peculiar balance between the acids

and the sugars in the soils of the Okanagan, because of the clarity of

our sunlight, and because of the north-south valley system, we could

grow a green grape that would produce white wines rivaling and perhaps

surpassing the finest white wines in the world. That study was

available, but evidently it was ignored by the government at the time.

I'm very curious to see why you ignored that study.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I'm not aware of the government absolutely ignoring this study. The

government was trying to deal with the bilateral agreement between the

two countries. A lot of people would tell you — and some of those in the

grape industry who had their grapes pulled out would tell you — that

the particular varieties of grapes that we were growing would not yield

the particularly good wines that you are referring to.

What

we are now saying and trying to encourage through the new wine industry

act and certainly through the opportunities that will present

themselves with the planting of proper vinifera or whatever type of

variety that will provide a very good wine.... That's the encouragement

we are passing on to the industry. I agree with you that there is a

potential to grow excellent wines, even though the micro-climate maps

that prevail throughout the world say you probably couldn't do it here.

But the fact of the matter is that the Okanagan has a great potential

to produce some of the best wines in the world.

[ Page

11279 ]

MR. BARLEE : Of course, the Minister of Agriculture must

shoulder some of the responsibility there. I've talked to many of the

growers, and they were encouraged to grow some of those very varieties.

Some of them had just come to the stage where they were producing — and

suddenly they're out of business. I don't think the ministry did its

background work there.

Will this 1,200 acres eventually

come back to the 3,500 acres that were in that particular area of

British Columbia, which the minister admitted is really quite unique,

capable of growing very fine grapes and capable of producing excellent

wines? Will that 1,200 acres come to 3,500 acres? I'll tell you why

that's important, Mr. Minister. I think there's a special ambiance in

the southern Okanagan and the Similkameen that doesn't exist elsewhere.

I think both the minister and I will agree that we do not want to see

housing roof-top to roof-top from Vernon to the border. But will that

1,200 acres come back to 3,500 acres within a decade?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Chairman, I guess if I could predict that, I wouldn't be in this

job. Quite frankly, I would hope it would. I would hope the

opportunities present themselves. But I couldn't crystal-ball gaze and

say that the 3,500 acres will be fully producing ten years from now —

say in the year 2000. But I strongly believe that the industry, given

the new thrust it has and the new capacity under the Wine Act, will

certainly make a strong endeavour to produce very good premium wines.

Perhaps at some point it will get back up to the 3,500 acres and with

God willing and good marketing, make it beyond that. I agree with you;

I would not like to see it go into homes, but into agricultural

production and continued use producing top-quality grapes.

MR. BARLEE :

Mr. Chairman, that is an incomplete answer. It seems the Americans are

a step ahead of us, as usual, and I get tired of it. Our family has

been Canadian for generations.

I got a call from Mr. Nick

Bavarro, who has a checkered career, in California. He's a major grower

of grapes in various parts of California. I had met him before, and I

tried to discourage him, but he was not about to be discouraged. He

phoned me up and said: "Is there any chance of me picking up 500 acres

in the south Okanagan, specifically on the north-eastern side of

Osoyoos Lake?"

[3:45]

I drive by that every day, and I see what has happened to those vineyards on

the north-eastern part — the Monashee Vineyards on Osoyoos Lake. I'm quite

close to this country, and it cuts a little deeply. So here's an American

who recognizes the opportunities in Canada and is quite willing to make a deal,

and I have to digress. I have to say we're not interested. He has come back

again, and I put him off again. So they seem to be able to see the opportunities

in Canada which we can't see. That's absolutely astounding to me. As

to the "success," which was the word of the minister when he was

referring to the vineyards and the wineries of the Okanagan, there is some limited

success. I will give the minister some credit. I think your latest plan is relatively

good on balance, and I'll commend the ministry officials for doing that.

Mind you, you haven't got enough experts working for you.

Washington

State is a prime example. They were down to two wineries about four or

five years ago; now they have 60. They have done an excellent job. I

hope you've taken a page out of their background work.

alluded to the Lusztig commission report. What did it cost the

government — $400,000? What is the final cost of this report? It is by

and large ignored by the government, by the way. I would have rather

seen that $400,000 or $500,000 go out to 500 growers and say, "Here

you are, boys; here's $1,000 each," because essentially this report

is flawed. The research in the report wasn't very good. It was not

accepted by the community at large. It really is a very poor report.

The

Lusztig commission operated within a very narrow mandate, which gave

you exactly what type of report that was expected back. Unfortunately,

the only problem was that it cost votes all the way down the line. I

know orchardists who had never voted anything but the government side

for 30 years; they're finished. I don't care if the government comes in

with a bail-out package or not. They are finished, because they don't

trust the government.

Now you're saying that we must be

able to compete on an international market. How can these guys compete

on an international market? They can't do it. Our land prices are

usually higher. The price of fuel and machinery is higher. We cannot

compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis. We simply can't do it.

This

may be future policy, but I'll ask it anyway. Your original opinion,

which is on the record, was that you accepted it, and that it was a

step in the right direction and so on. What is your opinion now of the

Lusztig commission report?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I guess

we can look at reports that have gone through several ministries over

many years. We can accept parts of some. We can criticize them. Some

are never implemented. But from the point of view of this report, if

we're to position the fruit industry for the nineties and into the next

millennium, I believe that something has to be done. I do not believe

that automatically continuing to ad hoc an industry necessarily

positions them for the future. I think we'd be totally irresponsible if

we did not try to address for the fruit growers, who I have a great

deal of confidence in.... They are farmers like a lot of other farmers

in this province, and I believe we should do everything we can to help

them position themselves for the rest of this decade and certainly into

the next century. I believe it would irresponsible not to do so. If we

do not look at ways of trying to help that industry to replant and do

more research or offer better opportunities for them in marketing, then

I think we have abdicated our responsibility to position them for the

opportunities that will present themselves in the years ahead.

[ Page 11280 ]

You

gave several examples, hon. member, of costs that may be higher here.

Why are they higher? You said land costs. I believe that land costs, as

in any other sector, whether it's real estate or farmland, vary quite

substantially. Some years they're high; some years they drop down. They

are unpredictable in a lot of sectors. It happens in farming and in any

other sector: if you buy in high and prices go down, it's very

difficult to get a return on that investment.

I do know

that some in the fruit industry have complimented us for looking at

possibilities of changing how the fruit industry might have a better

opportunity to increase their objectivity as far as incomes are

concerned and their objectivity in marketing fruit not only here in

Canada but in other areas of the world as well. The British Columbia

tree-fruit industry — certainly their apples — has a great reputation

worldwide. We as a government are committed to helping that industry,

and we will continue to do so. But at the same time, we want to

position them to look ahead and at how we can help them achieve that.

MR. BARLEE :

I think the minister made an accurate statement when he said the

measures taken had been ad hoc. Since 1975, which is fully 15 years,

those measures, according to the commission report.... It says this:

"The commission has concluded that too many of the support programs

were established and too large a percentage of scarce funds was

released in an ad hoc fashion." I think both of us agree with this.

This has been 15 years, not 15 days or 15 months. It has gone on and

on. Now suddenly, with an election looming — the timing seems to be

almost coincidental — the government is very concerned about the

tree-fruit industry.

We've recommended that there should be

a short-term extraordinary grant of 10 cents a pound, followed by a

long-term plan. We know that there will have to be adjustments in the

industry. We know that in some instances the agricultural land reserve

should be more flexible where there are frost pockets, where there are

gravel piles and so on. We realize that. But it has taken this

government 15 years to come down to this, with a considerable amount of

pressure applied in the House.

I'm saying it's almost 12

o'clock for some of these guys if the government does not react, and I

mean react immediately. I know growers who have grown profitably for 30

years. In the last three or four years they've suffered severe economic

conditions, and they simply can't make it. They're on to their last

assets. The minister knows that as well as I do. The minister must be

listened to in the inner cabinet. I'm saying that the minister — and I

don't think he can pass it off as future policy, because I'm allowed to

question him on that — has to go to that inner cabinet and say: "Look,

they do need an extraordinary grant." I'm sure the minister knows that.

I know that not all of these individuals are going to survive in the

long run. We both know that. But to put them on what we call a level

playing-field, a phrase that this government uses so often.... Let's

put them on the level playing-field and then let's inaugurate a

long-term plan for the fruit industry. Obviously this is not being done.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Here's

another example, and this example is really quite astounding to me.

Here's a guy who is drawing a steady salary; he has his own national

marketing agency; and he gets $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. He

made this statement on page 152 of the Lusztig commission report: "It

is the commission's firm view that supply management, if

implemented...." Now everybody has supply management. The doctors of

this province ask for a certain fee, and they get it. The oil

companies, as we alluded to before, ask for a certain price, and they

sure get it — in conjunction with the provincial and federal governments,

of course. The retail stores and the banks get their fees. This guy,

who's drawing $60,000 or $70,000 a year, is really worried about a

national marketing scheme which means that the grower can get an

average return of 15 or 16 cents a pound. I go to the store and buy

apples for 81 cents, 89 cents or $1 a pound; the grower gets as little

as two and a half cents a pound.

It's incredible. Why these

guys didn't vote against you before is absolutely beyond my

comprehension; it fairly astonishes me. But I think they're finished.

What

I'm saying is that Lusztig operated within this very narrow mandate

given by the provincial government. He goes on to say: "...if

implemented, will be a burden to consumers." That makes me laugh. For

heaven's sake — a burden to consumers! Since 1986 this government has

put on the backs of the people of British Columbia 634 separate

increases in taxes, fees and so on. If you don't think I'm right, check

it.

You find that funny. You're making $50,000 a year. I

know guys who are barely.... The first member for Boundary-Similkameen

(Hon. Mr. Messmer) finds that funny. I don't find it funny. Individuals

on their last assets can't afford to pay the high price of fuel, the

high price of equipment and these high taxes and fees. I don't find

that funny at all.

More importantly, he says: "Supply

management will deal with neither the underlying problems of the B.C.

apple industry nor the long-term needs of the orchardists." The

orchardists voted on that in Kelowna, and 95.2 percent said they do

need a national marketing scheme. I think the minister knows this; yet

here it comes out, in the very commission report that cost $400,000 or

$500,000.... First of all, I'd like to know how much the report cost.

Secondly, I'd like to know whether the minister agrees with that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The report cost approximately $400,000, if I'm not mistaken. Regarding

your reference to the issue of how the tree-fruit industry is dealt

with, the Lusztig commission report states that a lot of things should

be done, albeit some things recommended in the report are not feasible

to do. That doesn't mean to say the government accepts the full report.

The government will look at the report,

[ Page

11281 ]

assess what merit there is in it. It will not be done by itself.

This government has gone out and met with the industry. My staff have

spent a considerable amount of time meeting with the industry.

You

talked about the national supply management system. It's fair to say

that Mr. Lusztig did not recommend that the B.C. tree-fruit industry go

into supply management. But I can tell you that under the national farm

products marketing act.... The hearings will get underway in Kelowna

tomorrow, I believe, and they will be processed on through under the

federal act. We do not contest that in any way. The hearings will go

on. I'm not arguing that case one bit. I think what Lusztig is saying

is that he does not supply management per se as the answer to the

industry, because supply management will address the domestic side of

the product, but it will have difficulty addressing the supply side for

what is exported.

You talk, hon. member, about the markups

that take place in stores or the marketing boards. You refer to doctors

and so on. It does not necessarily mean that every supply management

system has the right to set a price. There are supply management

systems in this province, as you well know, that have nothing to do

with setting price. They manage the production by acreage or whatever,

by contract. They do not necessarily set the price at which it must be

sold; that's left up to the individual processor, whatever it happens

to be, when they're competing in the marketplace.

Your

doctors' fees and other fees that you use as an example — fair enough;

those are established at a level. But not all commodities are. I wish

the tree-fruit industry had a price at the farm gate. That would be

great. Then the system from there on could look after the costs. If the

fruit producer could get 15.5 or 16 cents out of the farm gate, then he

would not have to bear the cost of the packing-houses or the retail or

whatever sector is bearing down on him in the cost-price squeeze. When

you refer to 89 or 91 cents or whatever number you want to use, the

retailer is obviously caught with some product that has to be disposed

of. It's not guaranteed that every pound on the intake side goes out

the door of a store. A lot of us have been in stores where sorting

takes place three and four times a day to sort out product that is

starting to decay or whatever and is less than desirable to present to

the consumer; therefore that is marketed out, and there's a cost for

that. I would surely like to see the producer get a fair return if

possible. I'd be the last person to deny a farmer the right to a fair

return for the work he puts in to feed people in this country, because

I think he is the most deserving of any of getting a fair market return.

[4:00]

MR. BARLEE : On page 160 of the same report the Lusztig commission says

that it has recommended that a further advance payment be made by government

beyond the two cents per pound already advanced. Then they come up with this

eloquent statement about three-quarters of a cent a pound to three cents a pound

for all other varieties. So three-quarters of a cent a pound for all Delicious

varieties, which account for the majority of apples grown in the Okanagan and

Similkameen and Creston Valleys. Three quarters of a cent! He shouldn't

even put it in. Up to three cents for other varieties — that's astonishing!

Even the commissioner should have been given a mandate there that states: "Look,

they do need an extraordinary grant." Do you think three-quarters of a

cent to three cents a pound is even close to being adequate?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I suppose I should not comment on future policy decisions about what

amounts will be made, but I'm certainly concerned about the returns for

apple producers, as I said just a few minutes ago, or for tree-fruit

producers for that matter. As a government, certainly we'll try to be

as fair as we possibly can to the tree-fruit industry, as we have been

in the past, even though we well recognize that there have been a lot

of price fluctuations in that industry.

As you say, hon.

member, there are examples of people who got two and a half, three,

three and a half cents a pound for their produce, but there are also,

as I understand it, apple producers of specific varieties in the

Okanagan who have exceeded their actual cost of production. Varieties

do play a major role in the return to the fruit producer. It's

important to recognize that if you went on a varietal basis, it would

be difficult to do; you'd then have to assess whether in doing

varieties, do you do a grade of the variety or do you respect the

overall fruit production, which we have done in the past, based on

seeing better fruit? I think that's the only way we can address the

problem at this stage, even though some sectors are doing extremely

well.

MR. BARLEE : I find that interesting, because

most of these growers put in the Red Delicious apples under the

instruction of the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, and now they are

having to take them out. There's no guarantee, of course, that we can

compete on the international marketplace against New Zealand on a

dollar-for-dollar basis. We can't compete against New Zealand or Brazil

or Chile or the United States.

For instance, in the state

of Washington they grow about 110 million boxes of apples per year. We

grow about nine million. We are really a penny-ante player. Therefore

we may go to another variety of apple — and we have gone to a number:

Fuji.... They are numerous, but this does not guarantee us a place in

the international marketplace. There has to be another look at it.

The

interesting thing in this is that when I turned to page 174 — which is

the second to last page in this report — I was almost floored by this

remark. This is by a man who has presumably studied the marketplace.

He's a man of considerable intellect, but he has a right-wing bias. He

says this, concerning the wholesalers and retailers of British

Columbia: "This com-

[ Page 11282 ]

mission has found no real evidence of predatory behaviour." That's probably the great laugh of 1990.

Mind

you, I would not question the integrity of Jimmy Pattison and

Save-On-Foods. Jimmy Pattison has been known for his humanistic outlook

towards his consumers and the people who go to his stores. But that is

an astonishing statement. All the studies, all the individuals....

Here's a grower getting four cents or six cents a pound; they're

getting 89 cents a pound in the store. There's no evidence? What other

evidence do you need? Has the minister done anything? Have they gone to

the major food chains to say: "Look, these guys are last on the ladder.

They're the last rung. Sometimes they're below the last rung." Have you

gone to these guys? Have you gone to Jimmy Pattison? Have you gone to

Safeway? Have you discussed the problem with them?

If our

industry is to survive — and this is a sector at peril; all of us know

this — there are other values that come into play. The minister knows

this as well as I do. That's what makes me so annoyed at him sometimes,

because he's quite aware of it. There are other values. There's that

long-term look at the value of these lands, not just to the orchardist,

not just to the small businessman whom it impacts on, not just to the

tourism industry which it impacts on, but to everyone in the province

of British Columbia.

We have to take that holistic, wider

perspective, that longer view, and ask: "Are we going to keep these

lands despite the short term?" Is there really a long-term plan? There

has not been any evidence of a long-term plan for 15 long years. These

guys have been on the branch for 15 years. Really, they are waiting.

What is the long-term plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The

member would know that anything in the way of a long-term plan is being

worked on, but decisions are that of future policy. I cannot reveal

them at this instant, but of course we will be working on their future.

You

and I and anybody in this assembly know very well how important the

tree-fruit industry is to this province. You heard me say in my opening

comments how important the agriculture and fisheries sectors are to

this province. I respect that very much. I hope it improves.

also stated to you and to the members of this assembly that B.C. is the

only province in this country that will show nearly a 23 percent

increase in income levels. It's the only one in Canada that can boast

of that kind of return on investment in agriculture and the crops they

grow.

That is not to say.... The point we are just referring

to, the plight of the tree-fruit industry, is something we have to try

to deal with, to try to position the industry for the future. That's an

endeavour I am undertaking and will continue to work on, to try and

give not just the people of British Columbia but the people who are

directly involved in it some faith in their future. It's very important

that we address the issues — which we will be bringing forward at some

point in the very near future — as constructively as we can to try to

position the industry. I want to see those fruit growers

survive as much as you do. I want to see that land being used for

producing food as much as you do. It's extremely important as well.

Earlier

you stated that some of those lands are in frost pockets. Are there

other opportunities in agriculture for that land? If it isn't in tree

fruits, maybe there are other opportunities. We should look at those. I

agree with you on that point.

We will do everything we

possibly can as a government to try and help the industry. Although the

Lusztig commission of inquiry has made recommendations that may well be

controversial.... We have to look at every recommendation, whether it's

the Lusztig report or other reports or other individuals' advice,

including the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, as to how we can best

help them for the future.

MR. BARLEE : You are very

civil, Mr. Minister; you usually are. I don't always agree with you.

There are a few things we have to take exception to.

First

of all, we do not compete on a level-playing field. It is not a

dollar-to-dollar basis. For instance, the National Farmers' Union sent

out some information I was reading a month or so ago. They say this on

page 2 of the last report, talking about British Columbia farms,

specifically in the Peace River: "A crisis situation exists for many

farmers." That flies in the face of what you've just said. "While the

Farm Credit Corporation reports that farmland values in B.C. declined

by 26 percent in the 1984-89 period, outstanding farm debt in the

province increased from $1.185 billion to $1.194 billion." Land values

are going down, and the debt is going up. It looks like they're in

tough shape.

This very same report, for instance, had

another statement which I found kind of revealing. It shows that this

province is not as in touch as other provinces. Alberta and Ontario

certainly have more programs to help the farmer. For instance, they

give us an indication: "Again, we ask the British Columbia government

to reconsider the disparity between B.C.'s and Alberta's programs for

its farmers." These guys know what they're talking about.

specific example is the current price disparity between B.C. and

Alberta in gas and diesel prices. The Alberta farmer pays 17.3 cents

per litre for gas; the British Columbia farmer pays 32 cents per litre.

That's almost double, and it doesn't just end there, Mr. Minister; it

goes on.

I just got something from Ontario a few weeks ago:

financial assistance programs available to Ontario farmers, who are

facing some of the same problems we're facing. Here are some of the

financial assistance programs they have: Ontario Farm-Start; operating

loan guarantee program; Ontario young farmer credit program; soil

maintenance grant; advisory services; farm family adviser program;

Farmers' Helpline; Ontario farm tax rebate program; gasoline tax refund

program; fuel tax refund program; fuel coloration program sales tax

exemptions. It goes on for pages. We hardly have any compared to

Ontario and Alberta. It's really quite astonishing. Is the

[ Page

11283 ]

minister working on that? Is he approaching some of those problems that are very, very obvious?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Yes, we are working on some of those, and I know there are

discrepancies between fuel prices in Alberta and B.C. — and grain

prices. You could go on and on; you can take comparisons from across

this land. But it seems to me that if we're going to improve our income

status by some 23 percent, then that is not the major concern this

year. It is a concern of mine that we try and give our farmers an

opportunity equal to that presented in other provinces.

think it's important to recognize, when you look at the discussions

that are going on in reducing farm subsidies, that that's one type of

farm help. The fear now is that Canada is one of the worst in the

world. Somebody at some point is going to have to deal with the issue

of how you address providing help to farmers. I'd love to help farmers

as much as the rest, but we are also cognizant that some of these

issues may well be countervailable, and we therefore have to be very

careful how we help the issue of giving our farmers some ability to

compete with these other areas, whether it's next door in Alberta or

across the Prairies, or Ontario, or wherever. It's extremely important

— there's no doubt in my mind — and I'll do everything I can to try and

help B.C. farmers. I also think, hon. member, that we have to recognize

how we distribute that help without being subjected to some

countervailing action.

MR. BARLEE : You know, I'd

like to see us tackle the Americans on GATT some time; they always

tackle us. I get tired of the Americans, I really do. They call me

anti-American; that's probably partially true. You know, we are always

being countervailed; we are always getting tackled under various

conditions of GATT; and we always lose. We are remarkable losers, and I

get very tired of it.

[4:15]

The

minister referred to a 23 percent increase in receipts to the farming

community. A lot of that is from the greenhouses. A greenhouse is not a

greenbelt. I'm saying that the quality of life does not come from

greenhouse; it comes from a greenbelt. I'm saying that the people of

British Columbia generally agree that the agricultural greenbelts of

British Columbia are important to their quality of life, and I have to

hit that message home time and time again. The minister knows it as

well as I do. The only trouble is I feel sorry for the minister,

because he has to face the inner cabinet, and that's the one thing I

would hate to do.

We talk about the grain farmers. The

grain farmers in the Peace River are having a heck of a tough time.

What are we going to do? There are thousands and thousands of acres of

planted grain up there; we know that there's a worldwide surplus of

grain. Have we anything on the table?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We are presently trying to address the particular issue

you are talking about in the Peace River, so I'm not at liberty to tell

you what the details are, obviously; but we are working towards some sort of

help to alleviate what seems to be a disastrous price year for them. On top

of that, as you well know, we've also had some inclement weather that has

affected their capabilities for possibly having a good crop this year.

MR. BARLEE : I again thank the minister for a civil answer.

Let's

go to something more important. This tells me exactly where the

Agriculture ministry is in the echelon — on the ladder. If we take a

look at the ministry's own budget.... These are your figures, not mine.

We'll take a look. It goes over to page 35. I look at the 21 ministries

on the line, and I see their increases. My heavens, an election is

coming down the pike! Here are the increases: 13.4 percent to Advanced

Education, Training and Technology; the Attorney-General's ministry

gets 15.7 percent; Education gets 15.2 percent; Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources gets a whopping 77 percent; Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture gets 15 percent; Regional and Economic

Development gets 13 percent; Solicitor-General gets 13.5 percent. The

overall average — and I know what the minister is going to say — is 9.8

percent, practically 10 percent. Only one ministry has been, excuse the

pun, savaged, and that one ministry — by gosh, here it is, about fourth

down — is Agriculture and Fisheries, at 11.3 percent.

The

minister will probably get up and state that it's because of the $28

million spent on the grape.... Nevertheless, these are your figures.

It's the only one out of the 21 ministries on the line that went down.

It's the only one that had about 700 individuals working for it....

Most of them knew what they were doing. It was not an overloaded

ministry. Now you're down to 416 or 420; I may be two or three out.

The

other thing that absolutely amazes me is this. Your estimate for

1989-90 was $104.1 million. You spent only $100.8 million. Let me

elaborate. That is very prudent management when you don't need the

money. When you don't need the money, it's excellent management, and I

would be the first to commend the minister. But this ministry needs the

money more than any other. We could name a dozen areas where this

ministry needed the extra $3.3 million that you left on the table. You

left it on the table; they took it away and then reduced the budget by

11.3 percent. Astonishing!

HON. MR. SAVAGE : You're

quite correct in saying that we're down 11.3 percent. You have to

realize that part of it was the program that you mentioned, the $28

million grape and wine adjustment program. If you take that out, we're

down $9,475,000. The feed grain market development program concluded

last year was $1.3 million. The government cost of FII was reduced due

to the fact that we had signed the international tripartite

stabilization fund, which is federally funded along with the province

on a different ratio than we had under FII. Therefore we saved some $2,414,000. We drew in federal money instead

[ Page 11284 ]

it coming from the province. I think that's good budgeting, frankly, if

we can draw in the federal government and have them expend some of

their dollars in this province rather than it all coming from B.C.

The

overall total is $13,189,000. Don't forget, hon. member, that a large

part of that was the grape and wine adjustment program, which was only

there for one year. After you take those adjustments into

consideration, the balance of the ministry's budget is up some $3.1

million, or about 3 percent overall.

MR. BARLEE : You've almost regained the $3.3 million you left on the table last year.

Another

thing. Look at the long term. Let's look at this ministry's budget 15

years ago, when it was 1.8 percent. Then it went down to 1.4, then down

to 1.2, then down to 1, then down to 0.8, then down to 0.7. Now it

hovers around 0.6, one-third of what it was. That shows how important

this industry is considered in the inner cabinet. I'm saying it isn't

good enough for the industry, because the industry impacts on everybody

in the province, not just the farming community. The public is way

ahead of the politicians. They realize the value of the agricultural

greenbelts. I think the minister realizes the value of the agricultural

greenbelts; I do not think the cabinet realizes it. The cabinet is

stuck way back in the past. They're 15 years behind the times. You may

be up with it; I'm inclined to think you are. But I don't think they

are. You should be reversing that trend. It is simply not enough.

is prudent management, as I stated before, if you don't need the money.

We needed the money. I'll tell you where we needed it in a few minutes.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It would be nice if we could keep pushing budgets up and up, but I made

the statement not too long ago that in a global provincial budget there

is a problem of addressing which ministries have to have the majority

of the funding. I tend to believe — I would have to have it checked out

— that overall the resource sector funding has suffered, with more

money going into things like health care, education, social services,

housing and those sectors, which have seen large increases in funding

to administer the programs under those ministries. There have been

substantial increases in those. I would agree with you, hon. member. I

wish I did have more money in my budget, quite frankly. There are a lot

of things we could help agriculture with. I would dearly love to have

the dollars to do it with, but we will fight harder and stronger next

time, let me assure you.

MR. BARLEE : We talk about that $3.3 million and we talk about the environment.

We talk about programs needed. One of those programs we needed, as the minister

is well aware, is the SIR program — the sterile insect release program. Now

that's been delayed another year. It could have used that $3 million, which

would have given us a step up on our American competitors, because they don't

have it. We have some expertise in this country, and we didn't use it. We

didn't take advantage of that little slot in their armour, and we should

have. I brought it to the floor of this House last year. It was saved at the

last moment by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, I believe; she intervened.

We got it on the table, but it's still dragging. What has happened to the

SIR program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Again, that's a program that we are working on. It's part of the

sustainable environment fund that we're trying to get addressed, and as

you say, it will be part and parcel of the environmental sensitivity to

the reduced use of chemicals in food production. I am certainly one....

I noticed that you recognized that the Minister of Municipal Affairs at

the time did react very quickly. Unfortunately we don't have agreement,

because when the original presentation, as I understood it, came from

the tree-fruit industry, there was no request for funding. The original

request that came forward did not seek funding from our ministry;

subsequent to that, they did ask for dollars to be contributed. I also

have to give credit to the MLAs from the area, who expressed their

concerns about getting something in place to implement the program.

We're working towards that end, let me assure you.

MR. BARLEE : I'll accept that the sterile insect release program will be in effect next year.

Another

place where the $3.3 million that was left on the table — which is

astonishing — could have been used is in soil conservation projects.

We're losing soil all the time. It astonishes me. The minister knows —

he admitted it five minutes ago — that his ministry is short of funds.

He is going to work towards increasing the funding for his ministry,

yet he left $3.3 million on the table, which is just astonishing to me.

Another thing that really interests me is this: the lack of foresight, the

lack of imagination, the lack of initiative — I don't know what it is. Several

years ago the "Buy B.C." campaign was effectively discontinued. Here's

a government that spends $30 million a year. And what are they spending the

$30 million a year on? Some phony news releases that they make look like real

news releases, patting themselves on the back. I'm saying that only 10 percent

of that, a nice little tithe, should go to the agricultural community to have

an effective "Buy B.C." campaign.

You

stated in your

preamble that people don't know whether they're buying

B.C., Washington State, Chilean or Australian goods; nobody knows.

Therefore you go to the inner cabinet and say: "Look, you've got $30

million. You take $27 million; I'll take $3 million." And by gosh, you

should take $3 million. Now what would you do with that $3 million?

I'll tell you what I would do — and you may use this. It may cost me

politically; that's okay. Here's what I would do with the $3 million.

There are 365 days in the year — 52 weeks. Let's just cut that down to

300 days. That gives me $3