1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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 )

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1083 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Harbour Board Repeal Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Mr. Hanson –– 1083

Mr. Stupich –– 1087

Mrs. Dailly –– 1092

Ms. Sanford –– 1096

Mr. Michael –– 1102

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1983

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome two

prominent British Columbians, one of whom, in the full course of time,

will be sitting on the floor of this chamber: Arlene and Lyle

MacWilliam from Vernon.

MR. MOWAT: I ask the House to welcome today Mrs. Mary

Elizabeth Haberl of Lakefield, Quebec. Mrs. Harberl is visiting

Victoria for the wedding this coming Saturday of her grandson Timothy

Park, of Kimberley, B.C., to Judith Ann Laine. Mrs. Halberl has eight

children, 38 grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. She is in the

members' gallery, accompanied by her son Bill and his wife Margaret. I

ask the House to welcome the Halberls.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. HANSON: I rise in opposition to this bill, for a number

of very good reasons, one of which is that 4,000 acres of Class 1 and 2

farmland, which is British Columbia's very best farmland, is being

transferred to the B.C. Development Corporation against the wishes of

the Delta council, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Greater

Vancouver Regional District and the Agricultural Land Commission.

That's just on the farmland; there are other objections to the transfer

of Crown assets to B.C. Rail and the B.C. Development Corporation, with

all of the valuable running rights of the rail lines that go through

those parcels. There are labour contracts involved that will be

terminated, and the employees will come under the provisions of that

draconian legislation, Bill 3, which strips any kinds of rights away

from working people. When this bill is viewed in the context of Bill 9,

the Municipal Act amendment that takes away regional planning so that

there is no coherent plan that outlines transit or development

prospects between municipalities, we have a package which could result

in large-scale industrial, commercial or residential development in an

area that the municipality charged with running that local municipality

does not want. This government will often argue for municipal autonomy

when it suits their purposes; but when a municipality does have a wish

for a particular project or a land use plan, this usurps their areas of

authority and takes it away from them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The attitude of the government in this matter flows from the attitudes of the

Premier of this province, and the way he perceives farmland and the value of

farmland in this province. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to remarks made

by the Premier on December 19, 1980. It was after our '79 election, and

the Premier was passing through the northern town of Smithers. I think the House

should pay close attention to what the Premier said on that particular day,

because from his remarks flow the policies that have put our agricultural land

in jeopardy in this province. This is from the Struthers paper and it's

entitled "Housing Before Food, Says Bennett: 'It is ridiculous to think

that B.C. can become self-sufficient in any food but apples,' says Premier

Bill Bennett. In an interview last Wednesday in Smithers, where he made an overnight

stop during the provincial tour, Bennett said the province had lots of land

available for growing food and that land developers should be allowed to take

good residential property out of the agricultural land reserve." May I

remind you, Mr. Speaker, that under the former government in this province,

the New Democratic Party government, courageous steps were taken to preserve

our very valuable agricultural land. That particular move has the support of

all British Columbians; however, it does not have the support of this government.

[10:15]

"He said housing needs should be recognized before agricultural needs."

Now, Mr. Speaker, any child in elementary school knows the topography of British

Columbia: we have a province of inclines, slopes; we have very little good,

well-drained valley bottom land which is capable of producing....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You know, we hear these remarks across the floor,

Mr. Speaker, because they know that what I'm saying is reasonable and

logical and just makes good sense in terms of the management of land in

British Columbia. The Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) knows that what I'm talking about is

absolutely correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your whole opposition to this bill is nothing but a bunch of hogwash.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that minister sitting beside that minister of hot air over there knows that our class 1 and 2....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The minister of hot air has at least gone

out and done a day's work, and that's more than you've ever done. You

sit around and read socialist books.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if we can maintain temperance of

language we can also maintain orderly debate. I'll ask the hon. first

member for Victoria to moderate his language and style of delivery, and

I'll ask the minister to come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, one has to fight back in this

chamber. That minister is leaving — he doesn't want to hear the logic

and reason of my argument that agricultural land is a precious

resource. It is a scarce and non-renewable resource. Here we have a

proposal to remove it from the agricultural

[ Page 1084 ]

land reserve and transfer it to the B.C. Development Corporation for industrial purposes.

But let me continue with my comments on this particular

article from

the Smithers paper, because I think it's very telling about the

attitude of the Premier — and the government, because clearly the

cabinet follows the instructions of the Premier. "It's tough to get

land out of the ALR. I don't think anyone has to worry about losing

agricultural land. There's plenty of land around here."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we please have order and decorum.

MR. HANSON: "He said the process for appealing land

commission decisions on exemption requests is tough; in fact, the

procedure is probably too tough." In other words, this non-partisan

objective body, the Agricultural Land Commission, which sits in

judgment on applications to remove agricultural land from the reserve,

and therefore from agricultural purposes, he feels should be interfered

with more readily by politicians, and pressures of developers should be

heeded more clearly by local government. He says the procedures are too

tough. In other words, the protection of farmland is too strong. "The

Premier suggested that as more population demands are placed on

agricultural land" — I think this is very interesting; in fact it would

be very humorous if it wasn't so tragic — "agriculture will move

further and further out from the population centres." He thinks that

you can put agricultural land on rollers and move it away from

population centres. You can tow it away behind a truck. Clearly,

agricultural land has to remain where it is. You can't move

agricultural land further and further out from population centres.

That's absurd.

Now let's hear what the Smithers editorial said about those comments.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get some more books and read them.

MR. HANSON: I've got lots of books here, and if you'll just be quiet you could learn something.

"The statements made by the Premier of British Columbia in Smithers last

Wednesday are either figments of a distraught mind or they are an indication

of the most frightening policy directions yet brought down upon this province."

Isn't that amazing. The editorial staff of that paper was very quick to

recognize that the Premier's comments and attitudes towards the preservation

of farmland were frightening policy decisions. "To deal with his remarks

about agricultural land first...to believe a man of his purported intelligence

could be suggesting B.C. should forget about producing its own food. With world

population surging, the demand for food constantly outstrips productive capacity.

In B.C. this pressure is more evident every day, as the products of the market

garden of the western rim, California, get more costly." This is very important,

Mr. Speaker, because it's our very survival in British Columbia that we

can feed ourselves. "In fact the source of food is drying up, oranges and

grapefruit excepted, as the products are required to feed the people of the

United States. Where standards of living are rising in other parts of the world,

those places that have in the past exported their surpluses to places such as

Canada, the amount of surpluses gets less, and we're paying the premiums."

California's farmland is diminishing, and the population of Mexico, from

which we get a great amount of our vegetable crops, is growing to such an extent

that it is no longer going to be able to provide our food. Therefore, rather

than being more and more reliant on external sources of food, we must get more

and more reliant ourselves. We must be protecting that precious farmland in

the Fraser Valley around the mouth of the delta.

That delta, by the way, has built up over the last 10,000 years. It

may be a surprise to many members on that side of the House that that

delta was laid down as the ice wasted away in the last glacial advance,

and over 10,000 years the delta has laid down those sediments right

from the city of Hope. It may also be a surprise that 10,000 years ago

people were sitting on the beach up at Hope and collecting shellfish. I

know, Mr. Speaker, that you're a fan of shellfish.

I think it's interesting to note that that particular foreshore,

that beach, was at Hope, and what we have in the Fraser Valley is a

fiord that has been filled up by the deposition of the Fraser River.

Those sediments are thousands and thousands of feet thick, and do you

know, that precious Fraser delta is building at a rate of about ten

feet a year. But that's not fast enough because we can't expect that

Fraser delta to lay down good productive farmland as fast as this

government will alienate it and cover it with asphalt and roads and

carparks and shopping centres and plazas.

Our argument is that that precious resource should be saved and

wherever possible development activity should be focused on

non-agricultural land. We can construct industrial complexes on sloping

land and on rock. In fact, the development costs are often cheap,

because you don't have to lay down the foundation. But the problem is

that agricultural land is generally at an assessed value which is low,

and great profits can be made by buying agricultural land used for the

production of vegetables, hay, forage or something like that and

flipping it into some large-scale industrial activity.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against industry.

MR. HANSON: I'm not against industry; I'm against industry on class 1 farmland.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will have every opportunity to speak when he closes debate.

MR. HANSON: I know it's impossible for that minister to

understand the distinction between building industrial complexes on

land that is agricultural or non- agricultural. When you have the best

farmland in the province, why do you want to build industrial complexes

on it? That's a very simple question.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I'm not alone.

They laugh, but I'm not alone nor is our caucus on this side on the

House alone in our opposition.

I indicated that the Delta council wrote to that minister very

recently and asked him to put that land into the property management

branch of the Agricultural Land Commission. Why? Because they felt that

there was no assurance that that land would be maintained as farmland,

nor would they have any say in development if it went to BCDC. If it

went to the Agricultural Land Commission property management branch

they would administer it as farmland and would find

[ Page

1085 ]

young, enterprising and energetic farmers who would happily take over that

land and make it productive and produce the very valuable food resources that

we require.

Just to conclude with a paragraph from the Smithers newspaper....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you're reading the newspapers. You've never had an original idea of your own.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you're a bore. Why don't you shut up?

MR. HANSON: Not only is he a bore; he's a dummy.

"There is so little agriculturally suitable land in

this province — a maximum of about 4 percent. It is incumbent upon

society to make that land precious, to use it in the most practical

manner, to husband it with loving care. It does not need to become part

of the blacktop jungle. There is any amount of other lands suitable for

housing without alienating the little bits available with which body

and soul can be kept together."

A very important argument, pointing out the awareness of the people

of the north to the fact that they oftentimes cannot provide the food

resources they require. They pay exorbitant prices for it, and rely

upon the production of the Fraser Valley and the very rare and precious

valley bottomlands of the Skeena, of the Peace and other areas by which

British Columbia can, if not be self-sufficient, then at least attempt

selfsufficiency.

For the elucidation of that minister, I have some statistics that

indicate how our self-sufficiency in various foodstuffs has declined

over the last few years. For example, in 1961 we produced 53 pounds of

red meat per capita, and consumed 132 pounds. In 1980 our production

per capita dropped to 47 pounds and consumption increased to 165

pounds. So on beef alone we are in a declining position. In terms of

vegetable products, poultry and so on, these statistics are very

important. Per capita production of vegetables in 1961 was 169 pounds

and we consumed 337 pounds — roughly double. By 1980 we were producing

substantially less: 133 pounds, down from 169 pounds, and our

consumption was up to 360 pounds; so by 1980 we were producing roughly

one third of our needs. This is even taking into account population

increase and so on. We are dealing on a per capita basis, and as our

population increases, clearly the extent of our selfsufficiency is

declining; we should be arresting that and turning it around.

[10:30]

In terms of fish products, our production has been declining substantially:

in 1961 we produced 390 pounds of fish per capita, with a consumption of only

12 pounds; in 1980 we produced only 114 pounds. That should tell us something

about the management of our fish resource, as well as the amount produced. To

be producing only one-third of the fish per capita that we produced in 1961

is alarming; our consumption increased from 12 pounds annually to 17 pounds.

British Columbians have never been great fish-eaters, but I think that is something

that is changing, and should change. Fish is an excellent source of protein;

it's something we can provide in British Columbia. It is extremely low in

fat; it is very nutritious. It is something that we are capable of harvesting

in plenty and managing in association with our limited land-based resources.

MR. MICHAEL: Do you want us to lower the wages to make production costs lower?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Members wishing to enter into debate will have every opportunity to do so.

MR. HANSON: I think those asides coming from the other side of the House are really interesting.

The government is not regarded as a good land manager, even among

the populace. They don't see them as husbanding the resources properly

in managing them. I'm pointing out to them the folly of their ways. I

don't mind if they heckle and throw in non sequiturs, etc., because

they don't understand the implications on the future of our province.

Externally, we are going to be paying the price in the future. They

have a policy of living off their grandchildren in the sense that they

want to dispose of valuable resources today without regard to the

future. We're trying to tell them that it's false economics to use up

our valuable agricultural land today and have to turn to external

sources in the future, which will be extremely costly. Transportation

costs will be extremely high.

Food will be the next crisis. We had an energy crisis when the oil

cartels controlled our access to energy. The next major crisis we will

be faced with will be in access to food, in access to world protein.

There is already a famine in the world in terms of protein. I'm sure

all of us are aware that our per capita consumption of protein is

really an obscenity when compared with the access to food of many

people in this world.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please, could all members take

their seats. If we're going to have informal chats, may we have them

somewhere else.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing out that British Columbia might in

fact be a net exporter of many food commodities if we had a rational

plan in the production of foodstuffs in this province, both from the

sea and from the land. We could provide foodstuffs to the people of the

world who desperately need access to good protein and so on. What we

have instead is an extremely short-sighted policy. Under the provincial

government's jurisdiction at present we have the Harbours Board, which

has under its control 4,000 acres of the best farmland in British

Columbia near the coal port in Tsawwassen; and rather than doing what

the Delta council wants done, which is having it reverted to the

Agricultural Land Commission; or rather than doing what the GVRD wants

done, which is, having it revert to the Agricultural Land Commission

property management branch; or rather than having done what concerned

citizens and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture wanted, they chose to

chart their own course and have given this land to B.C. Development

Corporation and B.C. Rail for disposal as a Crown asset for acquisition

by private developers.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you have recently looked at a map

of south Delta, but there are very large parcels.... There is a bit of

a jigsaw puzzle there. A fair amount of agricultural land in that area

is under the Agricultural Land Commission, and it's highly contested.

For example, we have the Spetifore property in the Tsawwassen

[ Page 1086 ]

area, which is not too far from this particular area. There is a proposal to put 10,000 housing units in there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How about the 726 acres on Tilbury Island?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order and I'll ask the hon. member to refer to the bill itself.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very important, though, to understand that the Harbours

Board.... This bill before us to transfer this land to the B.C.

Development Corporation has implications with respect to the Spetifore

development and the Genstar development. Genstar has a very large piece

of agricultural land adjacent to the Harbours Board land. It's the same

land; it's class 1 and 2 agricultural land. Genstar has recently gone

to the Agricultural Land Commission to try to get their land out of the

agricultural land reserve. So we have the potential for havoc in that

area, because we're not going to have any regional planning after Bill

9 is passed. The net result will be that the Harbours Board farmland

could be developed into an industrial park or into a commercial

development or a residential development. We have the Genstar parcel

which could then be developed for the same purposes.

Ten thousand housing units are already proposed on the nearby

Spetifore property, so there's the possibility there for a very large

urban or industrial expansion, without any awareness of the transit

implications or the strains and stresses on other sorts of services —

transit through the Deas Tunnel, schools, hospitals and other social

infrastructure in that area. These particular hazards should be pointed

out in this House and debated as part of a lot larger puzzle and

mosaic, rather than within the narrow confines of that 4,000 acres in

itself.

They like to describe this bill as an innocuous bill, but it's not

innocuous, because it impacts against the future food producing

capacity of the province. It impacts against the notions of planning on

a regional basis in rational way and of Delta council having a say in

development within its own boundaries and adjacent areas. It also

impinges upon the books of B.C. Rail because they're going to have

Crown assets. For example, the running rights through that property

which will be transferred to B.C. Rail — which has been described as to

be of inestimable value, and they will have control of the running

rights through that particular parcel of land — are consigned to their

books.

MR. MICHAEL: Why don't you give us the figures on pork producers in British Columbia?

MR. HANSON: I can give you the figures on pork producers. I

have them right here: 1961, 40.3 pounds production as a percentage of

consumption; 1980, 28.6 pounds.

MR. MICHAEL: What year was that?

MR. HANSON: They're encompassed in the meat figures: 1961,

40.3; 1980, 28.6 — production as a percentage of consumption. For the

information of the member, this is provided in StatsCan's table no –– 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That doesn't include the socialist pork-barrel.

MR. BLENCOE: I rise under standing order 40, Mr. Speaker.

That minister constantly interrupts this House and throws abuse at

various members. He not only throws abuse at members; he also shows

disrespect for this chamber. I wish you would try to restrain that

member and have him show some decorum in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is attempting to do that. The Chair

must also remind all members that rising on points of order which are

not points of order is also an abuse of the rules.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the arguments that I have made are

reasonable, constructive and rational, and I'm sure that when the

minister reviews the Blues.... Clearly they're supported not just by

this side of the House but also by the municipality and the regional

government involved and by the legitimate organization concerned with

the preservation of farmland and B.C. food production — the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture — and by all citizens concerned about our

future and the development of it in a rational way. They can harp, they

can say silly things and so on, but it doesn't deter me from trying to

communicate to them that this particular action is wrong. This bill

will be opposed and voted against by our side. It is not an innocuous

bill; it is a bill that strips away from the local government a say in

the development of a very large portion of their community. At times

they use the argument that a local municipality should be the sole

decision-maker in a particular case when it suits their purposes, they

strip that authority away and totally disregard them.

They've had letters from Mayor Burnette of the Delta council asking that that land go to the property management branch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's a good man.

MR. HANSON: If he's such a good man, why don't you do what he asks you to do on behalf of his council?

MR. MOWAT: Have you seen the letter? Do you have the letter?

MR. HANSON: I think it's important that this House and the transcript of Hansard

include an outline of what the property management branch of the

Agricultural Land Commission is and does. I'm very pleased that in this

House at this time is the member on our side of the House who set up

the Agricultural Land Commission. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

had the wisdom to include in that structure a part of the Agricultural

Land Commission called the property management branch. The property

management branch was set up to acquire land on behalf of the public of

the province if farmers wanted to sell their land and ensure that the

land was maintained as farmland.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order. He will have

every opportunity to enter into this debate, as everyone else will when

they so wish and when they are

[ Page 1087 ]

recognized by this Chair. In the meantime could we please have some silence and decorum.

MR. HANSON: The property management branch of the

Agricultural Land Commission was set up to acquire land from farmers

who wanted to retire, but to make sure that the land they'd worked and

loved was maintained in farmland. The property management branch was an

opportunity for the Crown to assist young farmers to acquire land and

to gain technical assistance and so on, so that that land could be

maintained in productivity. That particular notion was enshrined in law

and has served the public well. However, since the Social Credit

government assumed power, I'm sorry to say that very little land, if

any, has ever been moved into the property management branch, because

the branch was never given funds to acquire land. That is a real

disgrace.

"The commission, with the assistance of the property management branch,

continues to promote agricultural development of farmlands through its farmland

leasing program." They would lease farmland to young farmers, because clearly

a young couple wanting to farm as a vocation would probably not have the capital

necessary to go and buy 160 acres, a large enough tract of land to be economically

viable. This particular commission and branch would assist them in a leasing

program so that they wouldn't have to have that large amount of capital

initially.

[10:45]

"The Agricultural Land Commission Act gives powers to acquire and dispose

of farmland. While no purchases of farmland have been made in the last few years,

the commission continues to lease properties leased during the initial years

of operation." "The initial years of operation" is really a euphemism

referring to the NDP government — the good old days when the commission had

the funds to allow the young people to farm. "In addition to the commission owned

properties, several properties owned by other agencies of the Crown, such as

Lands, Parks and Housing, Highways, etc., have been turned over to the commission

for leasing purposes." This is exactly what the Delta council and the other

agencies I've referred to have asked. Just very simply, they've said

to the minister: "Please, don't give land to the B.C. Development Corporation,

because then we'll have no say in what happens. It'll be disposed of

for the highest profit possible — disposal of a very valuable Crown asset. Give

it to the Agricultural Land Commission, property management branch. They'll

lease it out to young farmers, and in that gorgeous area of South Delta we'll

have farmland and food-producing capacity for the future."

I guess I already referred to some of these things before reading this little section:

"The Commission's objective in leasing land are:

(1) to assist young persons, who otherwise could not afford to buy a farm at today's

high prices, in establishing family-run farm operations; (2) to assist bona

fide farmers to increase farm unit size so as to create viable rational units;

(3) to promote integrated and multiple land use aims; (4) to encourage optimum

agricultural production. In addition to leasing farmland to individuals, the

commission has in the past attempted to facilitate community projects that would

enhance the agricultural community, such as the city of Vernon effluent spray

irrigation project on 810 hectares and the community pasture project on the

East Kootenay ranches (since abandoned due to budget restraints)...."

So here was a case in the Premier's own riding where the

Agricultural Land Commission was able to assist in cleaning up the

Okanagan Lake drainage system by stopping the dumping of raw sewage

into Okanagan Lake, which was producing the high phosphates and the

production of milfoil, which was choking the lake. They were able to

redirect effluent onto farmland so that it could be used for

fertilizer, and also assist in the reduction of the pollution of

Okanagan lakes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's ridiculous.

MR. HANSON: It's really interesting that the person heckling

the most at this point is the former Minister of Agriculture, who's

going to go down in history as the worst Minister of Agriculture this

province has ever had.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I know my time is coming to a close.

The main points of my argument have been reasonable, rational and

constructive. If the government were to heed and take notice — take a

second look — the people of the province would be much better off,

because we'd have 4,000 acres of wonderful class 1 and 2 farmland. For

those members opposite who don't know what class 1 and 2 farmland is,

it is land capable of growing the broadest range of crops.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now we're going to get another 40 minutes of agriculture.

MR. STUPICH: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs seems very anxious to speak in this debate from his seat. I'd

be quite prepared to yield if he is willing to speak on his feet in

this debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to hear what you have to say first.

MR. STUPICH: Apparently he would rather speak from his seat, which is his usual way of speaking in this House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair, ]

I suppose if there was ever an example of poetic injustice it would

be the bill before us right now. The individual in this Legislature who

in 1973 worked hardest to defeat the legislation setting up the Land

Commission Act is the one to whom we are now turning over control of

some 4,000 acres of agricultural land. Talk about poetic injustice.

Talk about letting the fox loose in the chicken-pen. The one who was

most anxious that we not have a Land Commission Act in the province is

now going to have complete control of some 4,000 acres of the best

farmland in the province of British Columbia; the best farmland....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who do you think has had control of it since 1976? Who do you think is chairman of the Harbours Board?

[ Page 1088 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, can we please continue with this debate, and may the member continue uninterrupted, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in 1973 that member spoke for

several days — I believe the figure was something like 24 hours. Talk

about filibusters: I imagine that was one of the records in the

province of British Columbia. At the time he made no particular sense.

I think he was not even trying to. He was simply trying to talk out the

legislation before us setting up the Land Commission Act,

an act that

was intended to save the very minimum amount of good farmland that we

have in the province of British Columbia. Of course, the best of it is

in the area now owned by the B.C. Harbours Board.

He objects that he has had control over the B.C. Harbours Board for

the last six or seven years, so what change is being made by wiping out

the Harbours Board right now? As the chairman of the Harbours Board he

has been operating under legislation that has been on the books of this

province since March 1967. The purposes of having that land have been

laid out long before in legislation. They were for industrial

development. That is what it was set up for.

I have here a newspaper clipping from Tuesday, March 14, 1967: "The

provincial government moved Monday to set up its seventh Crown

corporation." I wonder how many we have today. I haven't tried to count

them; I haven't had the opportunity this morning. We had very little

notice that this bill was coming up. It might be interesting. I suppose

the figure today might be 27.

In any case, some sixteen and a half years ago the Social Credit

administration in British Columbia was setting up what was then the

seventh Crown corporation. That was just the beginning of it. They set

up the B.C. Harbours Board, with initial power to borrow up to $25

million. Of course, the government wasn't borrowing money in those

days. The people of British Columbia were responsible for a lot of

contingent liabilities, and this was one more contingent liability. The

province of B.C. didn't borrow the $25 million, but the B.C. Harbours

Board did have the authority in the legislation that was given first

reading on March 14, 1967.

As well, it's kind of interesting to recall — not that I was in the

House at the time; I had to look at the newspaper clipping to remind me

— just where the opposition to setting up that Harbours Board came from

in those days. Some of those members — one at least — are still in the

House. The bill to establish the B.C. Harbours Board didn't pass

unanimously. It was presented in the House by the then

Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, and on March 18, 1967, he expressed

concern that "'opposition to the provincial government's superport bill

is jeopardizing crucial coal export negotiations.' He was speaking in a

stormy debate that ended with the six Liberal members voting against

the bill on second reading Friday." That's the report in the Province . The six Liberal members. The report in the Sun

the same day, talking about the same date, reports that the five

Liberal members voted in opposition to the legislation. I wish the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) were here to tell us how we got

from five to six. Not that he was the one responsible, but I recall his

telling us yesterday that one full-time is equal to two half-time. That

really gave us a lot of help in that debate. Apparently something

happened to one Liberal from one report to the other. As I recall,

there were only five; there might have been six, I'm not sure.

However, today we're dealing with legislation to wipe out the B.C.

Harbours Board. When it comes to transferring certain assets of the

Harbours Board, I have no particular concern. The railway is going to

be transferred to B.C. Rail; so be it. The operation of the port: maybe

that can be handled well by BCDC. But when it comes to turning over to

that particular minister 4,000 acres of the best farmland in the

province, then I have to raise my voice in objection to the legislation

before us. That minister made it very clear that he has no feeling at

all, no desire that there should be any agriculture in British

Columbia. He proved that rather forcefully in the short period he was

Minister of Agriculture, for it was obvious that he had no interest in

the Department of Agriculture, as it was then known. The present

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who

became Minister of Agriculture and served for a much longer period in

that capacity, won for himself the record of being the only Minister of

Agriculture in British Columbia ever to have a vote of non-confidence

at a federation convention.

They're only expressing the attitude of government when they express

their opposition to saving farmland; the Social Credit administration

that ran this province from 1952 to 1972, and that has been running it

from very late in 1975 — December 22 — until today, has shown, by the

people it has named to the Ministry of Agriculture, that as a

collective group, as a party and a government, it has no interest in

agriculture in the province. They're proving it today by turning over

to the member who was most forceful in his opposition to establishing

the Land Commission in the first place.... Let's get rid of the

agricultural land so we don't have this problem of dealing with an

agricultural industry. One of the members — I think the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — talking just a few days ago about the

four basic industries in the province, left out completely the

agricultural industry, which at this time is still, I believe, the

third largest industry in the province. They just don't consider

agriculture to be of any importance.

[11:00]

Saving agricultural land is important to some of us, and it

certainly is important to me. I was responsible for getting a

resolution passed at a convention of the CCF in 1951, a resolution

which at that time — or soon after — had the support of the current

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). It was a resolution in

favour of the preservation of agricultural land for agricultural

purposes.

After I was first elected in 19631 spoke on that issue as the

Agriculture critic in the spring session of 1964. There was no interest

on the other side of the House in saving agricultural land. I debated

with the Minister of Agriculture at the time the importance of

something in the neighbourhood of 4 percent of the total area of the

province considered to be arable land, a very minimum amount, and yet

the government at the time was prepared to do nothing to try to make

sure that the land was saved for agricultural purposes. As a member of

the opposition I raised it annually between 1963 and 1969 with the

Minister of Agriculture. There were two different Ministers of

Agriculture in that period, and each of them agreed that it was a very

important problem deserving of some solution and did require government

action, yet they hadn't decided what to do. For some time they were

waiting for a Canada Land Inventory program to be completed. That kind

of program is never complete; perhaps the scale isn't as much as it was

at the time, but it will go on indefinitely.

[ Page 1089 ]

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who prefers to speak

from his seat rather than from his feet, made some remark across the

floor of the House about land being taken over by the NDP government.

Not one square metre of land was ever taken over by the Land

Commission. The Land Commission does have the right to administer land

and does have an administration branch and control of some several

thousand acres of land that were acquired by the NDP administration.

When there were people who wanted to sell land, the Land Commission bad

funds available to buy that land; it was one way of making sure the

land would be retained for agricultural purposes, and the Land

Commission's responsibility was to make sure that that land was being

well used from an agricultural point of view.

In one instance, some 3,000 acres were sold by a corporation which

recognized that it was not going to be able to develop that good

agricultural land for industrial purposes with the NDP government in

office. So they came to the Land Commission and asked whether or not

they could make a deal to sell the land. A deal was made for some 2,000

to 3,000 acres in the Langley district. There were other smaller

purchases where farmers, who for one reason or another had to give up

farming, wanted to sell their land and were interested in selling it to

people who were going to go on farming it, but couldn't find a ready

buyer. In such instances the Land Commission said that in order to

relieve hardship........

Many of those instances were in locations where the individuals

might well have been able to sell the land at a price in excess of what

it was worth for farming because they were near cities, However, the

Land Commission Act stopped the land use being changed, even though the

Leader of the Opposition, when the Land Commission Act was first being

debated — that was one W.A.C. Bennett — told the farmers to hang on

until the next election. He said: "With the next election the

socialists will be thrown out of office and the Social Crediters will

be re-elected, and then you'll be able to do whatever you want with

your farmland. There will be no more controls. Anybody may convert his

farmland to any purpose at all with the re-election of a Social Credit

administration." That was his promise to the farmers at the time. Some

of them didn't want to wait, others perhaps couldn't wait and others

really didn't believe that any government would ever have the gall to

change that legislation in the way that it was changed in this House a

few years ago, and to change this particular legislation to turn over

to the fox in the chicken-coop absolute control of some 4,000 acres of

good farmland. I think a lot of them didn't believe that anybody would

ever turn the clock back.

Even as much as some of the opposition members spoke against this

legislation.... I've identified the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as one of them, and another

was the hon. member for Okanagan North, who spoke at great length, and

who at one point recited the story about the little red hen which was

probably in the reader when you went to school, Mr. Speaker; it was

when I went to school. That took up part of the time — anything at all

to take time in the House. They weren't interested in talking about the

need to save farmland, or whether there was any need; they simply

wanted to fill speaking time. They wanted to show that they had no

concern at all for the loss of farmland in the province of British

Columbia, although we have such a small land base. We were losing that

best agricultural land in the three most critical areas, Saanich

Peninsula, the lower Fraser Valley and the Okanagan Valley, at the rate

of 20,000 acres a year; it was being lost to agricultural production.

Mr. Speaker, you may remember what Lulu Island looked like when I

went to university. I graduated 34 years ago. You may have had an

opportunity; I don't know where you were 34 years ago. But at that time

Lulu Island was a very productive area of farmland. There is little

farming left on Lulu Island right now, and what there is is cut up into

small patches. That has happened because the Land Commission Act, as

many people said at the time we were fighting to get it through the

Legislature, should have been introduced some fifty years before. That

was the main criticism of it: that we were too late bringing it in. Of

course we brought it in — "these socialists" — as one of our very first

steps. As soon as we could we brought in legislation. As soon as we

could we told the people of this province that we were going to bring

in this legislation, that we were determined to save farmland in

British Columbia. We took that move, as unpopular as it seemed to be at

the time. There were demonstrations. They didn't get 40,000 people out

in Vancouver, they didn't get 20,000 people on the lawns of the

Legislature, but they did get 2,000. Not all of them were opposed to

the legislation.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we were doing very well up to this point. Can we get back to the debate, please.

MR. STUPICH: Admittedly, most of the people on the lawns were

opposed. I said 2,000; I know that is a very generous estimate of the

number there. But there were also farmers who recognized the need for

saving....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Surrey (Mrs.

Johnston) is telling me how many there were in Surrey, how many there

were in Delta. I wasn't invited to those meetings....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, you were. All the members were invited. Only the member for Delta had the guts to show up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, there will be no debate between members on the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, when you said there would be no

debate between members on the floor, I was going to say, "Do you want

to bet?" But I won't. I'll restrain myself

There were meetings around the province. As Minister of Agriculture

I was invited to some of them, and the ones to which I was invited as

Minister of Agriculture, I attended — every one of them. I attended

meetings where there were 2,000 people, I attended one meeting in

Keremeos where there were almost that many, if not quite. You weren't

there, no, but a Social Credit member was there. The member from

Okanagan North was there to talk about the Land Commission Act.

I attended a meeting in Kamloops with in excess of 1,000 people. I

attended meetings at universities. The Leader of the Conservative Party

at the time was often the chief spokesman

[ Page 1090 ]

in opposition to the Land Commission Act, one

Derril Warren, who has since been swallowed up by the Social Credit

organization. He might deny that he is a member but he certainly did

some work very recently for the Social Credit Party. The government

itself was so embarrassed by the quality of that work that they gave up

trying to push through this House the legislation that came from the

report he produced. I don't think there is any question that he has, if

not joined the party, at least agreed to serve the party in some other

capacity.

To get back to the Land Commission Act, there were large meetings

all around the province. The one here at the Legislature — 1,500 or

2,000, whatever it was — had quite a number of farmers carrying

placards in favour of the Land Commission Act. There weren't that many

in other parts of the province; there was a lot of opposition, and a

lot of it from farmers. A lot of that opposition was organized by

Charles Bernhardt, the then president of the B.C. Fruit Growers'

Association and also president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

He is the one who led the march to Victoria in opposition to the Land

Commission Act. He was the leader of the delegation that was invited.

The Premier went out and spoke to them. You may recall, Mr. Speaker,

that there was a delegation of some 20,000 here a few weeks ago, and

the Premier didn't dare to show his face.

When the farmers showed up on the Legislature Steps to complain

about the Land Commission Act, the then Premier Dave Barrett did go out

and speak to them. Or tried to; they didn't give him much of a hearing,

but he went out. During the course of his remarks he invited a

committee to come to his office and discuss their concerns and discuss

what might be done to allay some of their fears. I was part of that

meeting. The president was there with some of his executive. After the

delegation had their say, had the opportunity to say everything they

wanted about what we were doing — plenty of time — they were invited

into the Premier's office with myself, and we sat down and talked. They

expressed their concern that what the government was proposing would

take away a lot of the value of some of the farmland. Those same

federation officials had forgotten that some two years earlier they had

passed a resolution at their convention that they did not want

development rights to be added to the price of farmland in cases where

the government was buying farmland from farmers. Certainly individuals

would like to be paid for development rights if they could be measured.

But the federation as a whole said this would not be fair to the rest

of the farmers. Some farmers would have an opportunity to get something

over and above what other farmers were getting. This wouldn't be fair

to farmers as a whole. So the federation took a stand against including

development rights in the purchase price when the government was buying

farmland. That was their position then. They abandoned that position

when they came into office, of course. They wanted everything then. The

Premier and I said to them: "This legislation is going through." We had

the majority at the time — just as the government today has a majority

and are going to push through Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, it may even be that one day we'll get the budget for

1983-84 put through the Legislature. That may be too much to hope for.

But it's just possible that one day they'll bring the budget back and

conclude debate on that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm cautioned by the minister to

speak to the bill. He probably forgets that this is one bill of a

package of 26 bills that came in with the budget. We were told at the

time that it was a package — a restraint program. It's all part of the

budget; it's all part of a complete package. The restraint here is that

they're getting rid of three or four people's salaries. They've been

transferred to somebody else, I suppose, but nevertheless the

government is saying: "We're no longer responsible for those people."

So it's part of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, how can one talk about any one of the 26 pieces of

legislation introduced on July 7 along with the budget and be out of

order — at least until after we have concluded debate on the budget

itself, and it's up to the government to control that? They alone can

say when that's going to come in.

However, back to the Land Commission Act. Again, I was hoping the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would come

back, but he talked about the NDP administration seizing land. I told

you earlier that not one hectare of land — not one square metre of land

— was ever taken over by the Land Commission, although they have some

3,000 or 4,000 acres under their jurisdiction. However, the legislation

passed by the previous Social Credit administration in March 1967 does

have under its control 4,000 acres — that's about 1,600 hectares, if we

want to convert. Every square metre of that 1,600 hectares was

expropriated. So when we talk about who's going to expropriate land and

who's going to take over land and who isn't, I would remind you that

the legislation passed by the NDP administration did not provide for

expropriation. As a matter of fact, it explicitly said that there would

be no expropriation powers granted to the Land Commission Act. That was

part of the legislation.

The legislation passed by the Social Credit administration that was

opposed by only the five or six Liberals who were there at the time,

depending on whether you read the Sun or the Province ,

did provide for expropriation. Following that, some 1,600 hectares of

land were expropriated by the Social Credit administration. That didn't

end it. One landowner fought for years against that legislation, and

finally — I believe it was last year — was successful in getting his

farm back. But there is still some 3,900 acres of land in that Harbours

Board area that is being farmed. Its not being well farmed, Mr.

Speaker. It's not as productive as it should be, and that's

unfortunate. The reason for that is not because it isn't good land or

because there aren't people who want to use it productively to its best

advantage; the reason is that the Harbours Board has never been willing

to enter into longterm leases with any of that land with the people who

are operating it.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says: "That's not true." I'm not

aware of a single long-term lease, and there were people who wanted to

get long-term leases from the B.C. Harbours Board when I was in office

as Minister of Agriculture. That was one of the things we were working

for, and that was one of the reasons that we wanted to turn over to the

B.C. Land Commission control of all of the land that was owned by the

B.C. Harbours Board that was not needed for the purposes that the

legislation originally came in for — providing the rail line and,

shipping the coal. Perhaps 100 acres was all they really needed for

that, but all the rest of the land could

[ Page 1091 ]

have been better administered by the Land

Commission than it could by the Harbours Board. Now, of course, there

are jealousies. The Harbours Board wanted to keep administration of it.

I suppose one reason was that they might lose some of their staff if

they lost some of their responsibility. So there was this question of

maintaining empires. The B.C. Harbours Board fought against any

transfer of control of this land. The Land Commission tried to get it.

The Minister of Agriculture tried to get it. And the minister

responsible for the Harbours Board under the NDP administration

wouldn't let it go.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We hadn't resolved that argument by December 22, 1975,

unfortunately. I wish we had. Certainly had we known that today we

would have been dealing with legislation that turns over absolute

control to the worst person imaginable in the whole province from the

point of view of preserving farmland, there's no question but that we

would have all agreed very quickly to turn the land over to the control

of the B.C. Land Commission. Not that that would save it for all time.

They've changed legislation before. When the Premier campaigned in

1975, he said he was going to wipe out the legislation. He backed away

from that and lost his nerve, because he realized that it became

popular,

When we were debating that legislation in 1973.... When we met with

the farmers — or rather with the federation officials — in the

Premier's office, we asked them: "Well, what do you want? We're going

to put this legislation through; we have a majority. We believe it's

important and the people of the province will eventually support it."

They wanted some protection. They wanted to be able to farm, and they

wanted to have some protection of their income. We said that we were

going to name the select standing committee of the Legislature which

was going to travel around the province, between sessions of the

Legislature, talking and listening to agricultural groups all over the

province to help us to develop a program that will make it possible for

farmers to make a living out of farming rather than out of subdividing

their land.

That was our intention. We said to the federation: "Maybe you'd like

to have a hand in this. If you're prepared to hire researchers or hire

your own staff or anybody, or to spend money in any way in an attempt

to develop programs that will in your minds help make it possible for

farmers in B.C. to make a living farming rather than being land

developers, we'll match everything you spend dollar for dollar, up to

$50,000." When the figure finally came in it was somewhere around

$48,000 or $49,000.

They embarked upon studies. Out of those studies came programs: the

Farm Income Insurance Act, the Agricultural Credit Act and the Farm

Products Industry Improvement Act. Those three main programs came out

of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture hearings all around the

province and out of the work of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in

producing that program.

MS. SANFORD: The committee hasn't done anything since.

MR. STUPICH: No, it did do something. It did spend $3 million

to arrive at a determination that food costs more in B.C. than it does

in some other provinces.

MR. MICHAEL: Tell us about that, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm invited by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke to tell about that. That is something he might

better ask the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt). It was something that was proposed, established and

controlled by his ministry. I was a member of the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture at the time.

I ~m going to cut the next three-year history a little shorter by

saying that the success of the programs developed by the NDP

administration in cooperation with the Federation of Agriculture — as a

result of the work of the select standing committee — turned around

some of the farmers, not all of them. I appreciate that the ones in

Delta and Surrey are a breed unto themselves — some of them, not all of

them. The person who became president of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture the following year. Robert Reynolds, became one of the

strongest supporters of the legislation brought in by the Ministry of

Agriculture in the province of British Columbia. No one ever accused

him of being an NDPer, although he told me that he did, on one

occasion, vote NDP in absolute disgust at the lack of attention being

paid to agriculture by the Social Credit administration. In any case,

he was won over by our programs. He fought hard. He negotiated hard

when it came to agricultural income assurance programs but,

nevertheless, he appreciated what we were trying to do for the farming

community in the province of British Columbia.

His predecessor, Charles Bernhardt, the one who led the march to

Victoria against what we were trying to put through, against our

legislation to preserve farmland in the 1979 campaign, was invited by

us to appear on television in some of our paid ads, some of our

productions, and to tell the farmers in his area what he thought about

the agricultural policies of the NDP. At the time he was an active

Conservative Party member; there are none in B.C. now. They all call

themselves Social Crediters. They even attend Conservative Party

conventions. It's a very close-knit group right now. But in those times

there was a difference; there were still Conservative MLAs in the House

— two of them. One of them is currently the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis).

We invited him to appear on television and tell the farmers what he

thought about the results of the three-year program that the NDP

administration had brought in with respect to agriculture, knowing full

well that he was the one that led the fight against us in 1973. He had

also cooperated with us in the introduction of the other programs we

brought in. Not knowing what he would say.... He agreed to do so. His

only stipulation was that he would....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that got to do with the bill?

MR. STUPICH: It has to do with agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The minister's questions may not appear in Hansard ;

that's why I'm repeating them. The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development asks: "What has that got to do with the bill?"

I've been trying all morning to remind him that he is the last person

in the world who should have any authority over farmland. He showed so

clearly in 1973 that there is nothing for which he has less regard in

the province of British Columbia than farmland. So this legislation

which is turning over 3,900 acres of the best farmland to his absolute

[ Page 1092 ]

control should not happen. We should not pass this

legislation. The debate on the Land Commission Act is very relevant to

the legislation before us right now.

In any case, Charles Bernhardt, when invited by us to speak about

the NDP agricultural program, said only that he wanted to prepare his

own script; he wanted no control; he didn't want any advice as to what

he was going to say. Of course we accepted that. We had no idea of what

he was going to say, but we didn't have to use it if we didn't like it;

after all, these were going to be paid advertisements on TV. We used

every one of them, because they were an excellent commentary on what we

had been trying to do, and showed the change that had taken place in

some areas of the farming community; not all of them, I admit. But

certainly in the Okanagan Valley there was real appreciation of what we

were trying to do. And in many other areas there was real appreciation

of the importance of the Land Commission Act when we brought it in.

When the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was having its

food prices inquiry, legislation was introduced in this House to change

the Land Commission Act, weakening it, and making it possible for

anyone who could get the ear of a cabinet minister in the Social Credit

administration to get his land out of the land commission reserve. It

was fairly simple: all they had to do was to get a cabinet minister....

In some cases, the cabinet ministers themselves brought it in, without invitation, and were able to get land out.

This other legislation before us — I've forgotten the bill number; I

think it's called the Spetifore farmland legislation — is also

weakening the resolve expressed by this Legislature in 1973 when we

passed the Land Commission Act. I had hoped the Land Commission would

have administration over the Harbours Board agricultural land. I would

have hoped that the Land Commission would have had control over all

agricultural land owned by the province of British Columbia. I would

have hoped that the Land Commission would have had actual

administration over Colony Farm; that is another area that is going to

be lost to agriculture, in the event that the other legislation is

discussed and passed.

We have so little agricultural land in the province. Today we're

talking about turning over agricultural land to a man who filibustered

in this House for days on end against the establishment of a program to

save agricultural land — a program which between 1963 and 1969 his own

ministers said was necessary but that they just didn't know what to do

about it or how to handle it; they were waiting for someone to tell

them. In 1973 we told them how it could be done. They fought and argued

against it.

If they were turning the railroad over to B.C. Rail and the

administration of the rest of it to B.C. Development Corporation, okay.

But to turn over absolute control of 3,900 acres of farmland to the

worst person in the province of British Columbia, with respect his

attitude towards farmland, would be a complete abdication by this

Legislature of its responsibility to protect a very valuable and very

limited resource for the citizens of British Columbia today and

tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we must oppose this legislation. I would hope that even

on the Social Credit side of the House there would be some who

recognize how bad this will be for the future of British Columbia. We

must fight this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member for Burnaby North,

let me observe that in this debate a great deal of latitude has been allowed

to all members with respect to other pieces of legislation and other principles

that have been discussed during discussion of that other legislation. Clearly

Bill 25 does discuss Crown assets and their disposal, but if members could be

advised to stick within the context and the principle of this bill I think our

Legislative Assembly would be far better served.

[11:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do that, although

it is somewhat difficult with a bill that has been brought into this

House by the very minister who, as has been pointed out, led one of the

longest filibusters in this province against the preservation of

farmland. That is why it is most difficult for the official opposition

not to discuss that area, because of the fact — if I may remind the

House of the purpose of the bill — that the lands that were held by the

Harbours Board will now be transferred to the B.C. Development

Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I'm doing this for the benefit of people in

the gallery who perhaps are not aware of the purpose of the bill,

although I know you are. These lands will be transferred to the B.C.

Development Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has the

reputation of not being committed to the philosophy of saving farmland.

When in second reading the minister made his very brief remarks on

this bill, he concluded with this paragraph — which I would like to

quote for you now: "By reallocating this Crown corporation's

responsibilities, we are demonstrating that current government policies

are a logical continuation of philosophies which have been in place

since we were returned to government in 1975." That is how the minister

concluded his remarks on the bill which we are discussing, and

therefore I feet that perhaps I will not be taking too much libert in

the debate by referring to the remarks which the minister used in his

introduction. That is why we are so concerned about the passage of a

bill which will go through the hands of this particular minister, who

reaffirms in his concluding remarks that this bill will follow through

with the philosophy of the Social Credit government. That is our main

concern. If this bill follows through with the philosophy of the Social

Credit government, then all I can say is heaven help the public of B.C.

who are so concerned today about the preservation of farmland.

I find it rather tragic that we have to be in this House today

debating a bill which appears again — like so many of the Social Credit

bills — to be innocuous, but if we go by the record of the Social

Credit government and the members of their cabinet, including in

particular the minister who has presented this bill, we have much to

fear. We have much to fear from a government that ever since they came

in, in their first term, have not shown any commitment to the

preservation of farmland. And yet we are asked to pass a bill that is

turning over almost 4,000 acres of good farmland to the very member of

this House who stood here, as I well remember sitting across from him

and listened to it....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The opposition have said at least a

hundred times this morning that we're passing control of this land over

to me. I'd like to inform the other side of this House that I've been

chairman of the Harbours Board for the last six years and that I'm not

chairman of the B.C. Development Corporation. Therefore I would have

had less....

[ Page 1093 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the minister to discontinue that.

It is not a point of order. Standing order 42 may be used if a material

part of his speech in opening debate has been misquoted or

misunderstood. That is not the case, and so it's not a point of order.

The member for Burnaby North continues.

MRS. DAILLY: May I say, methinks the minister protests too

much, which makes me even more concerned that that minister, who has

become rather jumpy about this bill, is going to make the people of

British Columbia very jumpy about the preservation of farmland. It is

necessary, I think, to remind that minister and the members of the

government to which he belongs of some of the concerns that have been

expressed through the years re the Social Credit government's

commitment to preservation of farmland. I know the minister was out of

order, but his attempt at objecting is recorded now in Hansard .

Under the B.C. Development Corporation's ninth annual report, 1981,

members of the executive committee board of directors.... I'd don't

know, Mr. Speaker, but to me one of the faces here is remarkably

similar to that of the minister who is sitting across the floor from us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I told you I was director, but before I was chairman. Don't you understand? I'll have less power. You wouldn't understand that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I can understand one thing: that

never before has there been a government which has showed such a

politically heavy hand in all the operations of any aspect of this

government in every area. Of all the people that make us concerned, it

is certainly that minister, who is becoming exceptionally jumpy over

the accusations, which we feel are well-founded, on his commitment to

the saving of farmland. Thank goodness we do have a recorded Hansard ,

which I may remind the members of the House was only brought in when

the NDP became government. I recall, as I said earlier, sitting across

from that minister — and I am referring to the bill, because that

minister is responsible for it, and we have a responsibility to look at

the philosophical background of that minister re his connection with

farmland, because that is the main point of this bill. We must have

pages and pages of speeches from that minister, and I always find it

ironic when what the tiny little group of NDP is doing here — just

doing their duty on the floor of the House with a few little 40-minute

speeches — is compared in the filibuster of that member over there. I

would like to read into the record what he said, but it is so jumbled

that I think it would be embarrassing to that minister if I actually

went through some of his speeches word for word. I don't think I could

do that to him. I don't know if this would really be correct.

We all have a lot to say on this bill, and it may perhaps be boring

that minister because he is not interested in listening to the concerns

of the opposition who represent many people in British Columbia. He

unfortunately is here — he's the minister and he's responsible — and

whether he cares for it or not, he must sit here and listen to our

concerns. My big concern, however, is: will that minister listen with

an open mind? All I can say is that maybe just once that minister will

show the people of B.C. that he has an open mind and will listen to the

concerns we have about preserving farmland.

I am trying to find a coherent paragraph that would be relevant to Bill 42, which the minister was attempting to deal with.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member who

is on her feet suggested relevance. I've been sitting here listening

very intently, as I've done all week, to that claptrap from across the

floor, and I am having much difficulty on this very tranquil morning in

finding any relevance in what is being said by that member to the bill

that's before us in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. As I said before recognizing the...

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

...member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), we should be relevant in

our debate. There is some principle involved with a particular

section

of this bill, but I am sure there are many other principles that could

be addressed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the

irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. What the eye of the beholder

has seen are the irrelevancies of the original remarks made by the now

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), and that has been pointed out by the member for Burnaby

North. What the member for Burnaby North is saying....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is now entering into debate, and I would ask you to....

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm showing that the relevance of

the remarks lies in the lack of trust of the minister in statements he

has made over the years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will have to decide that, hon.

member, and I will ask the member for Burnaby North to relate her

remarks to the principle of the bill before us now. I'm sure that can

be achieved.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I will certainly do my best, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking of relevancy, as I was mentioning in going through the many

pages of debate by that minister who is in charge of this bill, I must

say that the Speaker in that day must have had an exceptionally hard

time — as I know you do, too, at times, Mr. Speaker — keeping that

member relevant But obviously the member has achieved some

opportunities to speak with great irrelevance because there are pages

and pages...which perhaps we can come back to later.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I always enjoy the interjections of that hon.

minister because they, too, are so relevant to the remarks which we are

attempting to make here. The matter of the preservation of farmland,

which I think we have to concede — and I know you have been most

gracious in conceding that — is certainly relevant to a discussion

about turning over acres of farmland to a minister who spoke for hours

on end against it....

[ Page 1094 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're not turning it over to me; I've had it since 1976.

MRS. DAILLY: I find it interesting that that minister

continues to protest that this bill and the turning over of farmland

has nothing to do with him. All I can say is that we go by the past

record of this government, and we know the heavy hand of many of their

cabinet ministers in everything. That is why we are so concerned. We

are not the only ones who are concerned. There have been many articles

written by a number of newspapers. Here's one from the Times-Colonist ,

I believe, that certainly cannot be said to support the New Democratic

Party. I think what they do support, hopefully, are facts. As the

minister responsible for this bill is becoming so jumpy I thought

perhaps I would not relate to him for just a few moments, but instead

to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). This

article in the Times-Colonist says: "Anyone who still believes

that the Social Credit government is committed to preserving farmland

should examine Agriculture Minister Harvey Schroeder's comments on the

annual report of the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission." It goes on to

say that the report reveals....

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I guess as a designated listener this

morning, I'm trying to find relevancy in the speech. The speaker keeps

making comments which are not relevant. Could you please get her

relevant to the item, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member

for Burnaby North will continue, Perhaps some relevancy in relationship

to the bill before us would achieve what the House wants to achieve.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to try and make this

relevant. If the member will bear with me as I read through this

particular editorial, I think he'll see the relevancy. I want to remind

him that good farmland is being turned over to the jurisdiction of that

minister's department. That's why I'm dealing with the matter of the

preservation of farmland.

[11:45]

The article, if I may continue, says: "The report reveals that since

1974 the province's usable farmland has been reduced by 74,031 hectares

by the exclusion of property from the agricultural land reserve."

That's the record of the Social Credit government to date. "To get some

idea of that loss, consider that Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich,

Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney total 52,624 hectares. For

the other 22,000 hectares, add in Saltspring Island and a couple of

other islands. Of that substantial amount of farmland, 6,479 hectares

were removed by the provincial cabinet against the recommendation of

the Land Commission." If I can digress from the editorial, Mr. Speaker,

that minister is in charge of this B.C. Development Corporation. The

point I'm trying to make in this debate is that because of the overt

political influence of Social Credit, and particularly members such as

the minister in charge, on any jurisdiction that they should not be

interfering with, we are concerned that if he has anything to do with

this bill, we will lose our farmland.

"Of that substantial amount of farmland...." It continues with

how many more were taken out. "Schroeder argues that during the same decade

34,928 hectares were added to the reserve. But according to land commissioner

Ian Paton, most of the added property cited by Schroeder is Crown land in the

interior, leased for agricultural purposes. That land does not, as Paton points

out, replace the loss of land in the fertile Fraser Valley."

Before I continue again, there has been an interjection that this is a socialist paper. I'm sure that the Times-Colonist editorial staff will be most pleased to have heard that remark made by the Social Credit cabinet minister.

"'We've gained in the wrong places and we've lost in the wrong places,' said Paton."

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Omineca one more time.

MR. KEMPF: As one whom you know to respect the rules of order

of this House, I stand on standing order 43. Again I say I have

listened intently to the debate that's gone on by all of the members

opposite this morning. Although some of it was slightly close to being

relevant, the debate that's going on now, Mr. Speaker, is certainly

not. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bill 25, the Harbour Board

Repeal Act. If we were debating the Land Commission Act or such a bill

pertaining to agricultural land in the province, I could accept it. But

I'd like you to bring that member to order under standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is very well taken, as

the Chair has already indicated prior to recognizing the member for

Burnaby North at the beginning of her address. Perhaps if the hon.

members taking place in this debate could refer to the principle

contained within the legislation, and specifically to the legislation,

then we could carry on and maintain orderly debate. I'm sure we can do

that.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I too have a

respect for your position and this Legislature. But I also have an

equal respect for the people of British Columbia, who are going to

suffer from the consequences of turning this bill over to that

minister. I will try my best to get back to the actual legislation, in

deference to my good friend from the Crown corporations committee, who

seems to find it not too pleasant to listen to the past record of the

Social Credit government re the non-preservation of farmland.

The B.C. Harbours Board was created in March 1968 — this is to

refresh the memories of some of the backbenchers — to establish the

Roberts Bank superport near Tsawwassen. That board was empowered to

borrow up to $25 million — later it increased to $50 million — for the

purpose of developing harbour facilities in the province.

I am at this time relating specifically to the background for

presentation of this bill. It was to promote the industrial development

of the province in conjunction with harbour development in shipping

southeast coal to Japan. Jurisdictional disputes between Ottawa and

Victoria predictably erupted, as ports are generally considered federal

under

Section 91 of the Constitution Act. Subsequently the National

Harbours Board took control of Roberts Bank in an agreement with the

B.C. government, despite disagreement over ownership of the foreshore

rights.

The Harbours Board controls the approaches to Roberts Bank through Delta and

Surrey agricultural land. The board initially expropriated about 4,000 acres

for the rail line and

[ Page

1095 ]

surrounding development. Another 3,500 acres lie outside the diking and, hence,

under water. A 14-year battle against such expropriation culminated in the ombudsman's

"Special Report No. 3 to the Legislative Assembly," called the Cuthbert

case, in July 1981. Subsequently, the minister in charge of this bill returned

title to the Cuthberts. I think this background information may help all of

us in future debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

About 3,900 acres of BCHB agricultural land remain under

agricultural production. These were the subject of a takeover bid by

the B.C. Land Commission in 1975. Delta council this week requested

that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development change the

bill to allow this acreage to be controlled by the Ministry of

Agriculture or the Agricultural Land Commission, rather than the BCDC.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to point out that the member speaking really has nothing to say

about this bill. If she wants to talk about correspondence from the

Delta council, would you table the letter, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has some difficulty determining the

actual point of order, other than the relevance factor, but I am sure

if the member would table at the conclusion, that would be agreeable.

MRS. DAILLY: It is our understanding that the Delta council

has requested the minister to change the bill. Therefore, when I

discuss on the floor of the House the whole matter of the Agricultural

Land Commission, I cannot see how I could possibly be called to order

by the members over there. By the way, it is interesting to note that

it is not the Speaker calling me to order; it is the jumpy members on

the other side of the House — and on this side. If the very area where

the lands are to be put under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development

Corporation is saying to the minister in charge of the bill that will

do this, "Will you please not put it under their jurisdiction; instead,

will you please have it controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture or

the Agricultural Land Commission?" then surely when I move back to a

discussion of preservation of land there must be some relevancy in this

debate.

I would like to continue with an editorial from the Times-Colonist

which expressed great concern over the former Minister of Agriculture,

whom I note is in the House now, and over whether there is a true

commitment by the Social Credit government to saving farmland. It

quoted the former minister as saying: "Eventually we are finding out

where the good stuff is; eventually exclusions will no longer make good

sense." That kind of a statement left hanging by a minister of the

Crown in the Social Credit government certainly sends shivers right

across this province. It does not give us any confidence whatsoever

that the Social Credit government will preserve our farmland.

To continue from the editorial:

"Had Mr. Schroeder stopped there, people concerned about

farmland preservation might have relaxed, reassured that the ALR in its present

form is safe for generations of British Columbians to come. Mr. Schroeder however

added that exceptions would be where" — and this is the important part;

there are always the exceptions, Mr. Speaker — "a municipality's or

regional district's needs for residential, commercial or industrial property

outweigh the need for agricultural land."

I'm quoting from the editorial:

"That is a denial of the principle behind farmland

preservation. Most B.C. cities and towns occupy the same flatlands as

the best farmland. Carrying Schroeder's exception to its inevitable

conclusion, burgeoning urban areas will ultimately overwhelm all

adjacent farmlands."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would

you ask the member who is speaking to Bill 25 to speak to Bill 25 and

quit just reading newspaper articles?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the overlapping interest has to be

canvassed to some degree, but relevance is one thing.... I think we

must remember that we have a principle of the bill, and while some

reference to other aspects is always allowed, it must not become the

centre of the debate. I'm sure the hon. member will bear that in mind

as she continues.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just conclude with

the final paragraph in this editorial, and then move on to another

area. The concluding paragraph in the editorial says: "The bottom line

is this, that we can look for a continuing sellout of farmland that

will ultimately make B.C. virtually dependent on food sources beyond

our provincial boundaries." That is from the Times-Colonist . I

would be most pleased to read the reply from the minister. but I keep

being told not to read from these articles. If I can find it, in all

fairness I will read it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder you were such a terrible Minister of Education.

MRS. DAILLY: We want to continue, not discussing personalities of former ministers, but with the main part of the bill.

In this bill the Harbour Board Act will be repealed by cabinet order

after passage of the bill. Another

section of the bill mentions that

the Harbour Board is dissolved and........

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're not dealing

section by section; we're talking to the principle of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this bill, I'm

concerned about the elimination of the board, so I'm just telling the

House that part of the bill does dissolve the board and that the staff

are dismissed.

I don't think the minister in his opening remarks — and I have them

in front of me — really talked too much about the dissolving of that

board. He didn't tell us particularly why; he didn't explain to us what

was wrong with the present board; he didn't say if they were having

problems. Actually, his opening.... It was amazing. That minister, who

can filibuster — and I give him credit for being one of the biggest,

loudest filibusterers in the province of B.C., if we want to give

credit for that.... When I say the biggest Socred filibusterer, based

on that minister's remarks.... As I said, they fill volumes and volumes

of papers, and yet there isn't one coherent paragraph that can be read.

And I regret it, because I'd very much like to repeat the remarks of

that

[ Page 1096 ]

minister, but I've been told that we don't want to

bore the House. I don't think I could possibly repeat all the remarks

of the minister without boring the House at great length. I'm really

just thinking, you know, of the reaction across the floor of the House.

My concern is that that minister, who did show considerable ability at

filibustering, was very strangely quiet in his introduction of this

bill. As a matter of fact, I kept looking for exactly what he said. I

have it in front of me, and as I go through it I am simply amazed that

he would bring in a bill that in the opinion of the opposition has such

import and yet leave it in such a very short time.

[12:00]

In this discussion of the bill, I want to reiterate that one of our

major concerns is that there is high-productivity, class 1 and class 2

agricultural land in the land which is going to be turned over to a

minister who has no commitment to saving farmland. Can you blame the

opposition — each member of the NDP caucus — for wishing to discuss

this bill? As we are all aware, the NDP has been known throughout North

America for being the government which had the courage to bring in one

of the first bills ever brought in by a legislature to actually

preserve farmland. So would we not be remiss, not only to ourselves as

a party but to the people of British Columbia, if we sat idly by here

and simply let that minister bring in a bill which, if continued under

his jurisdiction — as it will be — can at any time once again eliminate

forever good British Columbia farmland?

That is why we are all going to be on our feet discussing this bill,

and we certainly hope that the minister opposite, when he gets an

opportunity after all our members have spoken, will feel that he most

certainly is not the member to be in charge of this bill. When I say

that, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I cannot think of any other

cabinet minister in whose charge this bill should be put. Obviously

there isn't one member of the Social Credit cabinet who is committed to

the saving of farmland. If they were they would not have sat idly by

throughout the years since they have taken over as government in this

province and allowed erosion of valuable farmland to take place. It has

come before us, year after year, bit by bit, that there is no true

commitment to the saving of farmland. That is why the people of British

Columbia, I do believe, are very concerned, and I'm sure they are glad

that they do have an opposition standing here and intending to repeat —

even to the point of boredom, I accept — that this bill must be stopped.

I have not been involved with agriculture, but I certainly know, as

I've said before, the value of good food, as everyone does, and I know

the importance of keeping and preserving the land which will produce

the food. I'm really concerned that the members across there — who find

this debate humorous at times; I'm not quite sure why — particularly

the backbenchers, will perhaps talk to that minister and to other

cabinet ministers and express to them a grave concern which we're

trying to express to them: the farmland of B.C. must be protected. I

would only ask them to go back and attempt, as I have done, to read

through some of the minister's speeches, day upon day and hour upon

hour in this House, where he kept talking about Chicago and New York

and ripoff artists. I keep going through here trying to find something

relevant in all those hours he spoke; but we know there is no

relevancy. We know that all that member was doing was sticking to a

dogmatic philosophical commitment that it is more important, according

to the Social Credit members, to see that land is developed so that

people can make profits, rather than land being maintained and kept for

the best interests of all the citizens of this province, which means in

the development of food sources.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What is the point of turning over acres of good farmland for the

development of housing when those people in the houses will end up with

no food? Not only that, it's really pretty crass politics when any

government can put profit before the needs of all the citizens. What

are politicians elected for? I would hope it's because we are here to

represent all the people, and not just a few in this province who will

be able to make a profit out of land that should never be removed from

the farmland. It's a very strong principle in this bill which we're

fighting.

We have nothing personal against the minister in charge; I want him

to know that. What we do object to in the minister in charge of this

bill is his philosophical commitment to apparently not saving farmland,

but for some reason to looking after developers' interests first. There

is no point asking that minister to reassure us that this won't happen,

because we have clippings upon clippings from newspaper editorials

throughout the province of B.C. that have said over and over again,

since the Social Credit have taken office: "What are you doing to our

farmland?" That minister over there is not a minister who should be in

charge of this bill.

I know that members of the government, including the minister, who

have listened to me with such courtesy and kindness throughout this

debate will be very pleased that I've had an opportunity to express to

them my deep concern over this bill. Mr. Speaker, I'm quite serious, I

do not believe that that bill should pass through this House. I think

government owes it to the people of British Columbia to withdraw the

bill, as the opposition has asked them to withdraw many other bills,

Before I make my final remarks, I would like to make a general

statement. I'm really concerned that the Premier of this province, who

obviously must approve, I would hope, all the legislation that comes

through here, has not seen fit to be with us hardly at all for debate.

To my knowledge he has not taken

part in defending these bills. Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that we are not turning into a presidential-type

government. As we know, in the United States the president, according

to their constitution, only has to walk onto the floor of the Senate so

many times a year, and then just departs. That is not our system. We

have a parliamentary system. I resent very much that this parliamentary

system is being eroded by the actions of that Premier.

MS. SANFORD: We have an obligation in this....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now we hear from the real leader.

MS. SANFORD: That's right! You keep talking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation in this

Legislature to stand up and oppose the kind of legislation that we have

been presented with as part of the package that was introduced in

accompaniment with the budget. This particular bill turns over 4,000

acres of some of the best

[ Page 1097 ]

agricultural land that this province has to come

under the control of the B.C. Development Corporation. We know that the

4,000 acres, which is now under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Harbours

Board, should have been — and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

pointed this out — under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land

Commission for years. It should not have been under the B.C. Harbours

Board jurisdiction, and it should certainly not be put under the

jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation, as this bill provides

for.

When I think of B.C. Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker, I immediately think of industrial development.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right! The back benchers say, "That's

right. Industrial development and jobs." And here we have 4,000 acres

of the best land that the province has in terms of agricultural

production going under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development

Corporation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A minute ago your leader said it wasn't in

good production. Why don't you guys get your act together? No wonder

you're in opposition.

MS. SANFORD: It's not in good production. Mr. Speaker,

honestly! I don't know what's the matter with this minister today. He's

very agitated. I don't know if he hasn't had his medicine this morning,

or what it is. The minister doesn't seem to understand the difference

between the capability of agricultural land and the present management

of that land. The fact that the land is not being managed well by the

B.C. Harbours Board.... I understand that the minister is a member of

that board, so I'm not surprised that it's not being particularly well

managed. But the land is capable. It's class 1 and 2 land. It is the

finest agricultural land in the province, and that land should not go

under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation.

The back benchers agree with me. When you hear the words

"development corporation" you immediately think of industrial

development. If we lose that 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land to

industrial development, then it'll be a sad day indeed for the people

of British Columbia, and for the future generations of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that the land in this province that is capable

of producing food is very limited indeed. Only 4 or 5 percent of the

total land area of the province is capable of producing food. Some of

the best land is in the lower Fraser Valley and in the Delta area — the

B.C. Harbours Board land, which is under debate today.

The B.C. Harbours Board has been managing that land for a number of

years. The farmers in that area, who are today involved with the

Agricultural Land Commission, all say that the land is not being well

managed in terms of the best interests of agriculture in this province.

I'm assuming that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

himself has some concern about the way 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2

land is currently being managed under the B.C. Harbours Board.

When land is being leased for a short period of time, the people

leasing it are not able to develop that land in the best interests of

agricultural production. At the end of that short period of time — five

years or three years — they don't know how best they are going to be

able to develop that farm in terms of the future.

[12:15]

The Agricultural Land Commission has a number of acres of land that

it manages. The Agricultural Land Commission people point out that in

the best interests of agricultural production in this province that

land should be under at least a 20-year lease. The short-term leases

that the B.C. Harbours Board has allowed to happen over the years means

that that land is not producing in the way it should.

My argument today to the minister and the government is that they

take back this piece of legislation. If they are going to turn over

that land, it should be to the Agricultural Land Commission, not to the

B.C. Buildings Corporation or the B.C. Development Corporation or the

B.C. Harbours Board.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Some non-elected board. Who appoints that board, I wonder.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, it's a non-elected board.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister suggest that the B.C. Development Corporation is elected? I don't know.

That's what's going to happen to this land: it's going to be turned over to the B.C. Development Corporation.

I would like the minister to tell us how many agrologists are

attached to the B.C. Development Corporation. What do they know about

the optimum size of land to be leased for the purposes of agricultural

production? What does the B.C. Development Corporation know about the

kinds of products that should be raised on class 1 and 2 land? If the

agrologists, who now work so hard for the Agricultural Land Commission

in giving them advice as to optimum sizes of parcels of land for a

viable farm unit.... Where is the B.C. Development Corporation going to

get that advice, if in fact the intention is to continue to lease that

land for agricultural purposes? I don't think that is the intention at

all. In the next few months you're going to have lots of time to answer

all the questions we're going to pose to you,

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: This is the minister who spent day after day,

long before those back-benchers were ever here, opposing the placing of

any land at all into any kind of agricultural land reserve. We remember

that,

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's getting quite disorderly.

MS. SANFORD: There are so many unruly members on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. They are always foaming at the mouth.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under

section 61,

regarding relevancy to the item being discussed, could we have the

speaker be relevant, please?

[ Page 1098 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is always well taken. I'm sure the member can relate her remarks to the bill.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what I was doing. I

don't see that that point of order was necessary at all on the part of

the second member for Surrey. He fails to recognize that this land is

much better under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission

than under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation. That's

what I have been doing, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this morning. The

member was quite out of order in getting up to raise a point of order

about the relevancy of my remarks.

I'm afraid that one of the problems with this government is that

they cannot see that agricultural land which is classed I and 2 is

better managed under the Agricultural Land Commission than it is under

BCBC, the B.C. Harbours Board or the B.C. Development Corporation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you're so smart, why didn't you take it

away from the Harbours Board when you were government for three years?

More doubletalk!

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'll tell you. That poor minister! Isn't

he in bad shape today, Mr. Speaker? I wonder what happened to him last

night. If he had been listening this morning to the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich), he would have understood by now why it was that the

government of the day did not ensure that that land went to the Land

Commission. The member for Nanaimo said that that was one issue he

still regrets to this day was not resolved before December 22, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to point out to the government today that

agricultural land is too valuable to the people of British Columbia and

to the future generations of this province to leave it in the hands of

a corporation like the B.C. Development Corporation, which has attached

to it no one who knows anything about agriculture, the value of

agricultural land, farming....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, how many agrologists are in the B.C.

Development Corporation? I don't know of any. There is not one that I'm

aware of. I might be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know of any

agrologists who can advise the B.C. Development Corporation about the

use of that land. Obviously there aren't any agrologists attached to

the B.C. Harbours Board, and that hasn't bothered this government for

the past 11 years or so. It hasn't bothered the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because he sits on

that board. Anyone can tell the minister and the Harbours Board that

the agricultural land the 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've never even seen it.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. I love this. If you have not seen the land....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development as well as the second member for Surrey are always saying:

"Have you seen the land? Have you walked on the land?" Mr. Speaker, I

want to point out — I've pointed this out before, and they still

haven't got the message — that I do not want used car dealers to tell

me what is agricultural land and what is not. They're both car dealers.

Because they are car dealers and have somehow seen the land, then they

know all about fanning, farmland classifications and everything else.

MR. REID: I don't mind if you call me a farmer. I was one once, but I couldn't afford to stay on the land.

MR. SKELLY: You failed at that too.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the members please come to order.

MS. SANFORD: In order to have agricultural land managed well,

you have to have a lot of people with a lot of expertise. The point I'm

making is that under this bill this land is going to go to the BCDC.

They do not have the expertise, nor do they have the interest in

agricultural land. I'm very afraid that the back-benchers are right in

saying that BCDC is interested in industrial development, and that it's

going to be industrial development that we see on that 4,000 acres of

some of the best farmland in this province. That is short-sighted and

displays the kind of tunnel-vision I've come to expect from this

government. The Agricultural Land Commission people, the GVRD, the

planners who look all of the time at future developments and population

predictions — all of these projections — tell us....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, they're doing away with....

Well do we know that too. We can't have any planning or any sort of orderly development — none of that.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I didn't hear that. If they're going to shout at

me, Mr. Speaker, would you ask them to shout one at a time? I can't

hear them all at once.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development will come to order. I think we've had quite enough

outbursts from all members with respect to the debate being carried on.

If members are finding time heavy on their hands, they might read

standing order 20.

MS. SANFORD: We have to have people with expertise who know how to manage

land which is as valuable for future food production as that particular piece

of land is. B.C. Development Corporation can't do it. My fear with that

piece of land, as well as with several other pieces of land — including the land

which has been known as the Spetifore land, the Colony Farm, the Tranquille

area — is that they're all in a very precarious situation at the moment

because of the actions of this government and because of the kind of thing

[ Page

1099 ]

that they're proposing in this piece of legislation before us today.

The Agricultural Land Commission, the GVRD and the planners all say

there's absolutely no need in the province of British Columbia in 1983

to take valuable farmland and develop it for industrial, commercial or

residential purposes.

Are they reading

section 20? That's good. Well, read

section 21 when you finish that,

If we are going to ensure that we're going to have food production

in this province in the future on the very limited amount of farmland

available, we cannot allow land as valuable as this to go to the B.C.

Development Corporation for management, because then the whole future

of that land is jeopardized.

I want to talk for a minute about Colony Farm and the management

that takes place there under another government corporation. B.C.

Development Corporation is going to assume jurisdiction over this land.

At the moment Colony Farm is under the jurisdiction of the B.C.

Buildings Corporation. They rent the land for which they have

jurisdiction to the management of Colony Farm at this stage. The rental

that is charged for agricultural land in the lower Fraser Valley.... If

you wish to rent agricultural land for purposes of farming, you can do

that from the Agricultural Land Commission. You can do it from people

who own land, such as the B.C. Harbours Board. This land is being

rented for about $175 an acre per year. Of course you can't farm on one

acre. You need to rent far more than that. But $175 per acre per

year.... As a matter of fact, the Land Commission people tell me that

it rents at anywhere from $100 to $175.

If we have the duplication, under the B.C. Development Corporation,

in terms of the charges that it makes for the annual rental of the

land, then we're going to be faced with the situation such as the one

we have at Colony Farm, where B.C. Buildings Corporation is not renting

the land at $175 an acre per year, but instead is charging over $2,000

per acre per year. That's $1.4 million that Colony Farm has to pay to

B.C. Buildings Corporation to rent that particular farm — $1.4 million

a year is what that comes to. It seems to me that B.C. Buildings

Corporation is ripping off Colony Farm and the operation that's taking

place there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never!

[12:30]

MS. SANFORD: The charges are outrageous. How can you possibly

justify it when the rates for renting land in the lower Fraser Valley

run from $100 to $175 per acre per year, and B.C. Buildings Corporation

charges over $2,000 per acre per year? It seems to me that what they're

trying to do, by using that approach, is to discourage anyone from

trying to make a living from that farm.

If B.C. Development Corporation takes the same attitude and decides that they

are not going to rent out that land at $175 per acre per year or less, but instead

are going to duplicate the B.C. Buildings Corporation and rent out the land

for over $2,000 an acre, then people are not going to want to rent that land

for farm purposes. The farmland will sit idle and the government will then say:

"Well, nobody wants to farm it anyway; that is our excuse — we will put

it into some other use. We will use the cabinet powers that we assumed in 1977

under a change in the Land Commission Act, and overrule the Land Commission,

which says that this is class 1 and 2 land and is the best that we have in the

province. We will overrule what they say and we will take the land out and that

will be our excuse. No one wants to rent it anyway, no one wants to farm it

anyway, because obviously you can't afford $1.4 million in a rental fee

and make...."

Interjection:

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

obviously wasn't listening. What I am saying is that colony Farm right

now pays $1. 4 million a year in rental fees to B.C. Buildings

Corporation. If B.C. Development Corporation adopts the same charges

that BCBC adopts, then obviously no one is going to be able to farm it.

That will be the excuse that this government will use in order to take

that land out of the agricultural land reserve and say: "No one wants

to farm it anyway. We can't find anyone who is interested in managing

this land which is the best agricultural land in the province.

Therefore we will take it out and ensure that some of our friends who

are interested in making a profit either through building houses on it

or constructing commercial developments...." You should be ashamed of

yourself, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, sitting there allowing that

4,000 acres of land to go into BCDC.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you buy B.C. products?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Do I buy B.C. products? Of course I do. If you

had any concern for farmland in this province and the production of

food in this province you would not allow this land to go into BCDC

right now. You would not allow it. Nor would the Minister of

Agriculture sit there and allow the cabinet to take all of these other

parcels of land out of the agricultural land reserve, over the

objections of the Land Commission itself. As a matter of fact, he made

representations to have agricultural land taken out of the agricultural

land reserve. He made representations to cabinet, saying yes, overrule

the Land Commission. Now we have that particular member in charge of

preserving agricultural land in this province. Was a sad day for the

people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Do you want to be told again this morning that you were the worst Agriculture minister in the history of this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that statement has been made a couple of times. It is a personal reference to another hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: He must want to hear it again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the member to discontinue that type of remark.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm known

in the agricultural industry as one of the best loved and one of the

longest-serving ministers of Agriculture in this province, and I'd ask

that member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member could withdraw.

[ Page 1100 ]

MS. SANFORD: I guess he didn't want to he told again, so I withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal reflections are quite unparliamentary.

MS. SANFORD: I have a great fear as to what's going to

happen. to this land now that we have this piece of legislation in

front of us, legislation that puts it under the jurisdiction of the

B.C. Development Corporation. We cannot afford to have the Development

Corporation develop that land for industrial purposes. We in British

Columbia must fight to ensure that land which is capable of producing

food remains under the agricultural land reserve. It is absolutely

essential. We can change a lot of things. This government can remove

the Human Rights Commission....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Under standing order 43 the Speaker has

the authority to save members of this Legislature from tedious and

repetitious argument. Certainly we have reached that point now. I would

ask you to take some action under standing order 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that point of

order totally. The member has related most of her remarks to the bill

before us. I'll ask the member to continue, and relevance to the bill

would be most appreciated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that standing order does not

say anything about relevance to a bill. It says "tedious and

repetitious." It may be relevant to the bill, but nevertheless it is

tedious and repetitious, and I ask you to intervene on our behalf.

MR. COCKE: If the minister would search his conscience and

his mind, he would find that each and every member of this Legislature

has as much right to speak on a bill as any other. It surprises me that

the government doesn't get up and defend its actions in this situation,

other than on points of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that standing order, if I

can refer to it, states: "...either of his own arguments or of the

arguments used by other members in debate...." The arguments have been

made time and time again by other members, and I would ask you again,

please intervene on our behalf, and save us from this tedious and

repetitious debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That decision will have to be made by the Chair, hon. member, and not by a member of the assembly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, did you deduct the time for the

interruptions of those members? They keep interrupting me over there,

and I don't want to have any time deducted from the time available to

me. Have you given me that assurance? Thank you.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of the reasons that the government is very uneasy this morning

is that they never like to hear about agricultural land, its value and

the need to preserve it. That's why in 1977 they changed that

legislation to give them the authority to overrule a supposedly

independently appointed commission that is supposed to have information

available to it, through the agrologists' reports, about the capability

of land in this province. They don't want to hear about that. They can

do all kinds of things during this next four years. They can remove the

Human Rights Commission, eliminate the Human Rights Code, up the taxes,

increase the debt by the same amount that they've been increasing it

all of this time; in other words, tripling the debt in the next four or

five years if they wish. They can do all of those things, but....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Don't forget to have the time deducted, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, you've been sitting in the

chair for some moments now, and I bet you can't guess what bill we're

on from the remarks made by that member there. If you can, I withdraw

my point of order, but I would ask the member to speak to the bill. Can

you guess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as we're all aware, there is a

relevancy matter in debates in the second reading stage, and I'm sure

the member will continue to bear that in mind.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Forests has been abusing this

House this morning a bit. He's been getting up on a number of spurious

points of order, and I'm concerned that he's wasting the time of this

House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I've been exercising

my right as a member of this Legislature. I would ask that member to

withdraw any accusation she has made to me of abusing the rights of

this House. Would she please withdraw?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was your last point of order? You didn't even know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Firstly, all hon.

members will have an opportunity to take their place in debate.

Interjections serve no good purpose during debate.

On the matter raised by the Minister of Forests, the minister has

asked that any accusation of improper behaviour.... If the member was

putting such forward, would the member be good enough to withdraw? If

not, to clarify the matter....

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just found it very difficult to

understand what his point of order was previously, and that's why I

made that remark. But if it has offended him, I wouldn't want the

minister to be offended.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair thanks the hon. member.

[ Page 1101 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've tried three times now, and

three times I've been interrupted by the Minister of Forests on a point

of order, to make this point: that agricultural land, once it's gone,

cannot be reclaimed in this province. As the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) pointed out, you can't move agricultural land around. If

you develop it for industrial purposes — as was suggested by the MLA

for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell)...

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's what he said, that BCDC means industrial development.

...then we will lose that 4,000 acres. They can do all kinds of things

that can be changed in the future. But once they eliminate prime agricultural

land in this province, it cannot be recaptured. No government in the future,

no matter how concerned they are about the pressures of population, about the

fact that agricultural land is being lost in nearly every other part of the

world that now supplies us with our food, that once that land is gone, once

the land from agricultural production in places like Texas, California, Florida

— and there's tremendous pressure on agricultural land in those areas.... Those areas are losing large sections of land capable of producing food. We

cannot continue to rely on those areas to supply us with food, because there

is going to come a time — and it's not going to be too long in the future

— when the people who live in those areas are going to say to their governments:

"Don't export any more food, because we need it for ourselves."

Then in British Columbia, when a government, so uncaring and so lacking in understanding

and appreciation of the value of that small area of agricultural land that we

have, has turned another 4,000 acres over to the B.C. Development Corporation,

has taken another 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land out of the agricultural

land reserve, and has turned it over to their friends either for construction

of houses or commercial or industrial development, it will be too late, We will

not be able to produce our own food and we will not be able to import food.

That's the kind of short-sighted attitude of a government that is more concerned

about profits and taking care of its friends than it is about services to people

or ensuring that we have land in this province in the future that is going to

produce food.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, did you check to find out how much time was going to be added on to my 40 minutes because of the interruptions?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the members will be made aware of the time factor.

[12:45]

MS. SANFORD: An extra 40 minutes? Oh, thank you. Good. Then I can start on this next section.

The thing is that it's not just areas like California, Mexico and

Florida that we have to worry about. If we look at the rest of Canada

and at the reports coming out on agricultural land and Canada's

future.... These are presented by people with some knowledge, with PhDs

and all kinds of degrees after their names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they agrologists?

MS. SANFORD: They are agrologists. They are saying that

Canada has virtually no undeveloped quality land that is suitable for

agriculture. The agrologists are telling us that there is virtually no

undeveloped land left in this huge country of Canada.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, sure. Let's take the 4,000 acres and follow

the advice of this minister. We know where he stands on agricultural

land. For about 15 hours in 1972 we heard what he thinks about

agricultural land in this province. We know what he has done for the

past 11 years in the B.C. Harbours Board with respect to the

agricultural land down there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's only the socialist countries that can't feed themselves.

MS. SANFORD: Ahhh! That's just another little gem of wisdom

from that minister this morning. He's so agitated today. I'm really

quite concerned about his health. I know what his attitude is towards

agricultural land in this province, but the way he's behaving this

morning makes me wonder about his health as well.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MS. SANFORD: I had no idea that that minister was so talented

that he could create all that agricultural land. I don't know of

anybody else in Canada who can create agricultural land. Only that

minister can create agricultural land. He's amazing, Mr. Speaker.

It is not good enough that this government takes 4,000 acres of

prime land and puts it under the jurisdiction of B.C. Development

Corporation, which knows nothing about agricultural land or the

management of that land. We think the minister intends at this stage to

take that land out of the agricultural land reserve with the help of

his cabinet colleagues, who don't have any more insight into the need

to preserve agricultural land than he does. That land will end up with

residential, commercial and industrial dev