1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2627 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Membership in B.C. Utilities Commission. Mr. Skelly –– 2627

Noise levels on Queen of the North. Mr. Lockstead –– 2627

Workers' compensation. Ms. Sanford –– 2628

Christina Lake flood compensation. Mr. D'Arcy –– 2628

Price of beer. Mr. Macdonald –– 2628

Noise levels on Queen of the North. Hon. Mr. Fraser replies –– 2628

Dangerous and hazardous chemicals. Mr. Skelly –– 2629

Highway relocation between Revelstoke and Mica. Mr. Lockstead –– 2629

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2629

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2631

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2632

Mr. Stupich –– 2635

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2635

Mrs. Wallace –– 2636

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2637

Mr. Stupich –– 2637

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2637

Mr. King –– 2637

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2640

Mr. Skelly –– 2640

Mr. Barrett –– 2642

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2642

Mr. Barber –– 2647

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2652

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Leading us in our prayer today was Rabbi Markowitz of Congregation

Temple Emmanuel in Victoria. I'm sorry that he has left the chamber but

I know that all members would want to express appreciation for his

attendance. Also, I think it is appropriate to note that the synagogue

in Victoria is truly an historic building. My colleague the Provincial

Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was

instrumental, just a short while ago, in ensuring that provincial

government assistance towards the restoration of that synagogue is

assured. The congregation has responded and the province was very

pleased to respond. He is presumably still in the building. Would the

House make him welcome today.

MR. HALL: I invite the

House to join with the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

and myself in welcoming, on this rainy day in Victoria, another group

of students from Surrey: a large group of students from Queen Elizabeth

Senior Secondary School and their teachers and some parents who are

visiting the Legislature this afternoon.

HON MRS. McCARTHY:

On behalf of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), I would like to

introduce in the galleries today, from North Delta, Mrs. Diane Darke,

with her daughter Suzanne. Accompanying them are Mrs. Darke's parents

from Britain. I would like to ask the House to make them very welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to have the House welcome my brother-in-law, Bob Sanford, who is visiting here from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It is a great privilege for me today, particularly as the new Minister

of Tourism, to ask the House to welcome some of our very dedicated and

competent staff from Tourism B.C. who are home in British Columbia for

staff and industry meetings. With us in the gallery are many old

friends of many members of this House: Mr. James Willis, our sales

manager from B.C. House in London; Miss Marjorie Green, our sales

manager from Tourism British Columbia in San Francisco; Mr. Richard

Ludwig, sales manager of Tourism B.C. from Los Angeles; and Mr. Dennis

Holmes, manager of Conventions Vancouver and the rest of the world. I

would ask the House to welcome these very dedicated people who serve

all of the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I'd like to congratulate them on their new boss too.

Also, it's not always that the member for Okanagan North has constituents

in the gallery, but we're fortunate today; we have four. I would ask the

House to welcome Mr. Tony Stamboulieh and his business associate, Mr. Peter

Easton of London, who are here to discuss the tourism industry. Also, from the

great community of Lumby, are Mrs. Tina Eagle and her daughter Mrs. Sheila

Plum. Would the House please welcome them all.

MR. BARNES:

With us this afternoon in the members' gallery are two friends: Mr. Tom

Sigurdson, a political science student at the University of Victoria

and a former constituent of mine in the city of Vancouver, and a friend

from Killarney, Ireland, by the name of Don Eadie. Mr. Eadie is a

member of the Irish Labour Party, and he obtained his bachelor of

science degree from the University of Dublin and currently is studying

for a PhD in chemistry at the University of Victoria. I would like to

ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today there are visitors from Nova Scotia: Mr. and Mrs. Dare and family.

Oral Questions

MEMBERSHIP OF B.C.

UTILITIES COMMISSION

MR. SKELLY: I have a question

directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will

the minister confirm that a former director of B.C. Hydro and Social

Credit cabinet minister. Ray Williston, has been approached to become a

member of the B.C. Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

NOISE LEVELS ON

QUEEN OF THE NORTH

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious concerns expressed about the high noise levels on the ferry Queen of the North ,

can the minister assure the House that he has instructed the Workers'

Compensation Board to monitor noise levels on all B.C. ferries and give

copies of the results to the ferry workers' union?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker. this is the first that I have heard about the question of

noise level on the ferries, but I think that I'm quite prepared to take

the question and make the appropriate inquiries.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Is the

minister aware that the crew members are prepared not to sail on the Queen of the North unless something is done about the noise levels on that vessel?

HON. MR. FRASER: I wish the member for Mackenzie wouldn't make these irresponsible public statements. At the present time the Queen of the North

is sailing. This is the first I've heard about it. If they want to

discourage the service, I don't think this is the way to do it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a supplementary to the irresponsible Minister of Transportation

and Highways who, if he were doing his job, would know what was

happening to that corporation. The vessel is two weeks late in spite of

his assurance to me two weeks ago that that vessel would be

[ Page 2628 ]

sailing

on May 15 or 16, and it will not be in service until the end of this

month, if then. It went back into Burrard drydock for a supplementary

refit this morning, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to assure

this House that something will be done about safety and the noise

levels on that vessel. Will the minister assure this House?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Mackenzie, this is all new to me. I want

to say that we have an excellent management team, and I'm sure they'll

took after everything and abide by all the rules and regulations that

exist.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. A worker at the

Alcan plant in Kitimat was recently refused his workers' compensation

claim for an injury he sustained while participating during working

hours in a Workers' Compensation Board health study. This was done at

the board's request. He was denied any compensation coverage, even

though he sustained that injury during that test. In view of this case,

has the minister taken steps to ensure that workers injured in the

course of participating in WCB health studies are fully compensated?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I will again make an inquiry. It seems to me that the

request being made by the member is a most reasonable one, and I'll

take it from there.

CHRISTINA LAKE

FLOOD COMPENSATION

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment.

As the minister is no doubt aware, I have a number of former constituents who

have retired or made their current homes in the Christina Lake area. On April

28 this year Sutherland Creek overflowed its banks and severely damaged or destroyed

a number of homes in that area. In view of the government's great compassion

and sensitivity in dealing with flood victims in the Coquitlam and Burnaby areas

last winter and in dealing with victims of flash-flooding in the Kitimat, Terrace

and Skeena areas a year or so ago, I will ask the minister if he, along with

his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, could have a member of staff investigate

some of these damage claims and, hopefully, compensate the individuals for the

damage they have suffered.

might point out that even though damage to perhaps 15 or 20 homes does

not make an immediate splash like the massive number of homes damaged

in the Coquitlam, Port Moody and Terrace areas, to the individuals

involved in each case it is equally severe. I would certainly hope that

the two ministers could get together with their colleagues on the

treasury benches and recommend that these people be compensated. These

losses, as the minister knows, are not covered by insurance.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The recommendation has actually taken place already, and there are

meetings between this ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture. The

policy covers permanent homes, not vacation homes.

MR. D'ARCY: I made it clear, in what I admit was a fairly lengthy

preamble, that I was discussing people who had either retired permanently to

this area or made their homes there even though they may still be working in

the Trail area. I was not talking about vacation homes.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I appreciate the member's remarks, and those matters are taken into

consideration when assessments are made by the correct authorities. We

don't have any difficulty in determining which falls under the

guidelines of a vacation home and which falls under the guidelines of a

permanent residence.

PRICE OF BEER

MR. MACDONALD:

I have an oral question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. From February 28, 1977, up to last April there have been six

increases in the consumer price of a case of beer, amounting to 51

percent in that period — following, I might say, visits of the

breweries to the minister. I am preambling this with the query as to

whether when the breweries cough the customer has to get a pain in the

exchequer, because that's what's been happening. The price is now up to

$4.95 a case.

My question is: can the minister produce to

this House any arithmetic which would show that the breweries have been

justified in receiving these kinds of increases?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The increases which the member refers to have resulted from the

increase in the price of the product at the wholesale level to the

liquor distribution branch, in most instances. The most recent increase

reflected an increase in the excise tax on the part of the federal

government.

The general manager of the liquor distribution

branch is the person who accepts the information provided by the

breweries in their request for an increase in the wholesale price; the

general manager of the liquor distribution branch then makes his

recommendations to the minister and to cabinet.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm asking the minister: have you got any arithmetic that would show

that these increases were justified? You're the minister. Can you

present anything to the House to show that these things were justified

— far more than the increase in the cost of living?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I believe that the general manager certainly has information which

justified his recommendations for the various increases which the

member speaks of.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further

question. It appears the minister was not shown that these increases

were justified. Has he made any decision to place this kind of increase

in the price of a case of beer — and a barrel of beer, for that matter

— under the new proposed B.C. public utilities commission, where it can

be examined in detail?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I have

not, but I'll certainly ask the minister responsible for that

commission to try to rationalize why beer should be considered a

utility.

NOISE LEVELS ON

QUEEN OF THE NORTH

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to expand on the reply I just gave to the member for Mackenzie regarding the Queen

[ Page 2629 ]

of the North , formerly the Queen of Surrey .

I've just been advised that the chief of operations of B.C. Ferries,

George Baldwin, states the noise level problem involves only five crew

cabins; the Workers' Compensation Board is on board at the present time

taking noise level tests, and it is being worked out to ensure proper

comfort. I'd like the members to say: isn't that good service!

DANGEROUS AND

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Minister of Environment. Since the beginning of the

session the minister has been questioned a number of times on the

subject of the handling, transportation and storage of dangerous

chemicals. It is clear from the answers the minister has given that his

ministry has not done a comprehensive analysis of the problem, nor is

there a policy in place. Has the minister recognized the need for a

comprehensive policy with respect to the handling, storage and

transport of hazardous chemicals, and has the minister decided to

establish a public inquiry into the issue?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I just made some notes while the question was coming. In

the

preamble the member said "dangerous chemicals," and in the closing

remarks he said "hazardous chemicals." Since there is a substantial

difference between what is defined as a "dangerous" chemical and what

is defined as a "hazardous'' chemical.... That is the matter of

semantics that we face every day when we try to define what these

particular chemicals are. Our ministry only deals with waste problems

with hazardous and dangerous chemicals. The Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) deals with the transportation of

dangerous and hazardous chemicals.

MR. SKELLY: To the

Minister of Environment: in any event there is a serious problem upon

which the minister has made some announcements — for example with

floating barrels of dangerous or hazardous chemicals offshore in

British Columbia where all he has done is advise yachtsmen to look out

for them. The minister should be aware that there is a need for the

policy. I ask the minister again — rather than getting into the

semantics, which he is prone to do in these cases — has he recognized

the need for such a policy? If so, what does he plan to do about it?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

First of all, the announcement went to fishermen, not to yachtsmen,

because the weather is somewhat inclement on the Queen Charlotte

Islands for yachting at this time of year.

MR. SKELLY: There are no fish left. They are yachtsmen. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: That may be a matter of semantics too.

Mr.

Speaker, I think the question should be left for my estimates. It gets

far too long and involved for the brief period of time we have here in

question period to discuss it. I could go through it in lengthy detail

but, as you know, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment

Ministers meeting which was held in Halifax last month discussed this

very problem. Unfortunately I couldn't be present, but members of my

staff were there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. ROGERS: I know you could take the time off to go to court, but I couldn't take the time off to go to Halifax.

MR. LAUK: We're not doing anything — why not?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's right. You're not doing anything — why not? You said it; I didn't.

Mr.

Speaker, in conjunction with the federal government and also in working

with my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the

most important thing that we can do to handle this problem in British

Columbia is to ensure that we have a manifest system for transporting

hazardous and dangerous chemicals.

HIGHWAY RELOCATION

BETWEEN REVELSTOKE AND MICA

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a

question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I do want to

thank him for finally answering my previous question. I know that he is

going to apologize for the language he used in that answer to me in the

hallway.

My new question to the minister is: can the

minister confirm that it will cost $120 million to relocate the 60

miles of highway between Revelstoke and Mica Creek in order to place it

above the water level that will be created by the Revelstoke reservoir?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm glad the member for Mackenzie has moved out of the coast area:

B.C.'s a large place. The road from Revelstoke to Mica — that agreement

was entered into some three years ago, and B.C. Hydro has got to

relocate the road because of the Revelstoke Dam. They gave the project

to our ministry, and it is estimated the relocation of the road will

cost about $100 million. all payable by Hydro. The job is half

completed; the balance of the contracts are already awarded.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a few rather specific questions for the Minister of Agriculture

today. Most of them deal with his responsibilities as the minister

responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission.

I have

been somewhat concerned by the continuing lip service we get from the

government relative to their commitment to preservation of agricultural

land. As I review the things that have happened over the past few

years, and particularly since the amendment to the Land Act which

provided for a direct appeal to cabinet without the okay of at

[ Page 2630 ]

least

two of the land commissioners, my concern has been specifically because

of the secrecy that has been involved in those kinds of things. It's

along those lines. They're not all

section 9(8) appeals — or

section

10(3), depending on which act you're talking about, the old or the new.

There are various appeals that have been raised to me, and I have some

concerns regarding them. Of course, some of them probably go back even

before that. Perhaps one of the first cases that came to my attention,

long before this minister was responsible, was the case of Doug Brett

Motors in Chilliwack where ELUC took that land out and it appeared that

there were reasons to suspect that there was political influence

involved there.

Gloucester Properties, of course, has been

the most outstanding thing, and I have a

summary of the sort of things

that have gone on, starting back in May 1977 when the original

application was filed. We got along to July 1979 and we had at that

point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Excuse me, hon

member. At this point I have to ask hon. members to come to order. It's

increasingly difficulty for the minister to hear the member presently

speaking. Possibly the member would wait just a moment until members

take their seats.

MRS. WALLACE: Or leave.

Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I realize it must be difficult for the minister to

follow this with the high noise level. As the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) said: "We should get the WCB in to investigate the noise

level in the House."

We came along then from May 1977 when

the application was first filed. We got to July 4, 1979. This was after

that case had gone before the Land Commission and had been thoroughly

reviewed by them with a unanimous decision — all members of the Land

Commission — opposing it. But because of

section 9(8) or 10(3), and

because of the minister then responsible, who apparently just decided,

as he attempted to justify his position, that all appeals that did go

to ELUC should go through.... On July 4, 1979, the member for Langley,

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

McClelland), was quoted as saying that in his opinion this is really

none of the Land Commission's business, if we have empty industrial

land or not. Remarks like that lead me to wonder about this

government's commitment to the preservation of agricultural land. He

goes on to say that there has not been enough care taken by the Land

Commission and its agents in rating the land. He said: "I think that

the comparison that we were given today by Mr. Runka is extremely

simplistic." Mr. Runka is one of the most well-known and respected

agrologists in British Columbia, and to say that his evaluation of

agricultural land was simplistic indicates to me that perhaps that

particular member doesn't have too much concern about the preservation

of agricultural land.

We go on from July 4, 1979. On October

3, 1979, ELUC allowed the appeal. At that point the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair), then the Minister of Environment and chairman of ELUC,

said that he knew nothing about the application even though he had

signed the order to release the land from the ALR. The chairman of the

Land Commission at that point: in time said that the Land Commission

looks at things technically and the government looks at things

politically. Again, that makes me wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether or not

the political aspects overshadowed the need to preserve agricultural

land.

We went along to October 10, 1979, where we had the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) coming onto

the scene. He was the man who professed to have a greater knowledge of

the qualities and soil capabilities than the agrologists. He was the

man who said: "It was poorly drained; it was rocky and it wouldn't grow

anything." Of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources was the man who said: "It wouldn't even grow Christmas

trees." Certainly those things were in contravention of the things that

were being said by the experts in the case.

We got along to

October 24, when the Premier came back and said that he wanted ELUC to

take a second look. At that point he said he consulted with the then

Attorney-General and the Attorney-General advised him that ELUC could

do this, but certainly any casual reading of the act would indicate

that ELUC can't do it. It can be done by cabinet. Cabinet can add or

exclude on its own initiative, and cabinet could certainly have put

that land in the reserve, but that didn't happen. It still hasn't

happened. I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether or not he was

prepared to make such a recommendation to cabinet and I got an answer

that he was not prepared to take a knee-jerk reaction. You know, this

has been going on a long time and that land is very subject to

pressures.

We go on to the fact that the Premier and ELUC

decided then to freeze the land, and that's the way it sits until this

day. So my question is: has the minister now decided whether or not he

is prepared to make some recommendations to the cabinet to ensure that

that 626 acres of land is protected? Certainly there have been some

rather interesting articles and editorials written in this connection

in the province. I have a couple here taken from the Colonist , both of which point to the fact that there is something lacking; there isn't enough public information. In the Province

it talks about the whole episode indicating how far we have wandered

from the idea of land policy administration by an independent

commission. That was the thinking in the mind of the editorial writer

of the Province at that point in time. In the Colonist

it talks about the introduction of the Land Act as being the most

significant thing the New Democratic Party government did in order to

protect B.C.'s dwindling supply of land. It goes on to say that we

shouldn't be surprised that developers and others constantly nibble at

the boundaries of the reserve. The editorial says:

"What is surprising is the system the Bennett government

has established for ruling on land appeals. When a landowner wants a property

out of the reserve, a government agency with expertise, the B.C. Land Commission,

examines the situation, but its rulings can be, in turn, appealed to a committee

of cabinet ministers. There's a good case to be made for having politicians

take the final decisions, but they are always accountable to the voters."

But

there is no case at all for ELUC to have the practice of making this

decision without explaining how it has reached its decision.

the two questions for the minister relative to Gloucester are: has he

made a decision to recommend to cabinet that that land be put back into

the reserve, and will he tell the House what the reasons were for ELUC

making that decision, if he's not prepared to do that? I think we have

a right to know that. Certainly it would be to the benefit of that

govern-

[ Page 2631 ]

ment

if they were more open with the reasons for their decision, because

when you take it into the political arena as much as is allowed under

section 10(3) or

section 9(8), by a direct appeal over a unanimous

decision of the Land Commission, and in opposition to the opinions of

the people who are really knowledgeable about land....

was very interesting, really, to note that the evidence that was

presented to ELUC on behalf of Gloucester Properties was in fact

compiled on the basis of a report which I understand the person who

prepared it was not prepared to sign because of the conclusions his

employer drew from the information that he had put together. That

person went so far as to indicate that one of the directors of

Gloucester Properties had asked him to come to that conclusion. When

you have those kinds of things out in the public, then certainly if the

government is to retain any degree of credibility about the land

reserve the minister has to level with us. He has to tell us why this

happened — why the decision was made. If it was made for some reason

other than the quality of the land, then he has a duty to stand up and

tell us that. To make it on the basis that the politicians know more

about land capability than agrologists is not really the way to go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, we dealt with this matter yesterday, and I recall your

giving a ruling with regard to the matter before the court. We are now

dealing with the decision the committee made in this regard. The matter

before the court, as I understand it, deals with both the committee and

cabinet in this land in Langley. I wonder whether or not the member is

now getting into the area of sub judice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not at this time, hon. minister. The member continues.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm not going to continue on Gloucester, because I just finished with

Gloucester. I've asked my two questions. I'm going on to another point.

This

is a rather small area in my own constituency — 60 acres of property.

There was an appeal launched with the Land Commission by Doych and

Smith to have the property removed from the land reserve. The Land

Commission decided that 20 acres along the river could be removed for

the purpose of a trailer park or a campsite. The owners weren't

satisfied with that. They came back and asked to have the 40 acres also

taken out. The Land Commission felt that that was good land. The land

down by the river was more gravelly. They said no, but they would allow

alternate use for a campsite or trailer site as long as there were no

cement pads or anything done that would deteriorate the land.

That

would have seemed to be a very fair decision from the Land Commission,

but the owners weren't satisfied and they appealed directly to ELUC, on

the permission of the minister, as I understand it. They appealed on

April 2, and on April 8 that 40 acres was released from the ALR. I

would like to ask the minister whether he made a recommendation to

cabinet as the minister responsible for the land reserve....

HON. MR. HEWITT: April 8, 1980, or 1979?

MRS. WALLACE:

It was 1980. If, in fact, the recommendation was that it should come

out, or even if it wasn’t.... If the minister decided against it and

ELUC overruled him. then I would like to know why. In three or four

working days, why was ELUC able to make that decision over the

unanimous and expressed objections of the Land Commission?

Another

case I would like to deal with is the Genoa Holdings. This is at

Westbank. I'm sure the minister is familiar with that because that's

more in his geographical location than mine. That particular company

had applied under

section 9(7) and then under

section 9(2). They were

refused by the Land Commission. In this instance it wasn't a 9(8) or a

10(3) — two commissioners did sign. It went to ELUC in 1976 and was

turned down. Not being satisfied with that, Genoa Holdings went back

again. This, incidentally, was in violation of the community plan, the

local zoning and what the regional district was requesting. It just

took 15 days to remove 25½ acres of Genoa Holdings by ELUC, in spite of

all these other objections. I am wondering again if ~.-.e minister made

a recommendation — certainly that is right in his area — to ELUC

relative to that. Why was that particular part, which is fairly good.

arable land, taken out, and yet 25 acres of marginal land were not

taken out?

I think we have some reason to expect that these

kinds of decisions, which affect such a vital resource very directly,

are justified and that some reasons must be given rather than simply

doing it behind closed doors and saying: "Well, that's ELUC's decision.

That's it." There has to be some justification.

We go on,

then, to another instance. I hope I have the minister's attention. This

is Ranchero Diversified Investments in the Pemberton area. This, again

was a 9(8) or a 10(3) — a unanimous decision by the Land Commission not

to grant the exclusion, yet it went to ELUC on February 12. To the best

of my knowledge no decision has come down yet. What I would like the

minister to tell me is whether ELUC has reached a decision on this. If

so. what is that decision? If not, how soon can we expect a decision

regarding that particular holding?

Right in the city of

Kelowna there are 723 acres in the Glenmore Valley. This was March 6,

1980. I'm wondering whether or not ELUC has considered that particular

ruling. The original request was for something over 1,000 acres. It's

now down to 723. Could the minister tell me what the status of that one

is? Has he made a recommendation and has it been considered? If so,

what is the decision?

One other slightly different item is

the Site C Dam — the proposed Hydro dam. I know that this particular

minister was formerly the Minister of Energy responsible for B.C.

Hydro. Now he's the Minister of Agriculture. I know that there's a very

definite division of opinion among people as to whether we should use

that valley for energy or whether we should use it for agriculture. I'm

on the agriculture side. I think that that particular, very special

type of mini-climate there should be preserved — that land that falls

within that valley, where the diversity of crops is so great. It's one

of the really rare things that we have grade 1 and 2 soil in an area

that far north. It's a very important thing, as energy costs rise, to

ensure that our food supply is as close to the consumer as possible.

Preserving that land is mightily important. I think my question to the

minister has to be: as Minister of Agriculture, is he prepared to take

a stand opposing the construction of the Site C Dam and opposing the

flooding of that very viable farm-

[ Page 2632 ]

land that would be covered by the water if the Site C Dam were constructed? So that's another question to the minister.

final one on the land deals with something quite different — a request

for an inclusion. This is the Stikine River Telegraph Creek inclusion

that has had the support of everybody: the regional district, the local

farm groups, continuing support from the Land Commission — requests to

have this included. Somehow cabinet is not prepared to do this. This

has been hanging fire for a long time — since December 1978, I think.

No, further back than that. December 1976 was the original application.

That was for 58,000. On November 25, it went back again and was amended

to 41,000 acres. Then in December 1978, it was again applied for —

26,800. You know, they kept reducing it in the hope that the cabinet

would act. No action. I would like the minister to tell the House

what's happening. There are people who want to put land in the reserve.

It's good land; it should be in the reserve. At least that's what all

the experts tell us. Yet the cabinet is apparently refusing to do it. I

would certainly like the minister to tell us what's behind that

particular delay.

Those are my questions about the land reserve.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I was prompted to stand once again in this debate dealing with the

Agricultural Land Commission for a number of reasons, including a

comment made by the last member who was speaking.

I think

the style and procedures we're witnessing constantly from members on

the opposite side of the House are interesting. They are making certain

statements, which are incorrect, in such a casual way that a casual

observer would believe them to be correct. A statement repeatedly made

by members opposite, including the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) today, is: "...prior to the amendments in 1977, which allowed

direct appeals to cabinet." We heard the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) making a similar comment yesterday, and certainly other members

from that side have repeatedly made the comment.

appreciate that members in this House are responsible for statements

made in the House, even if they're incorrect. But I think, perhaps in

an informal way, I would very much like that member for

Cowichan-Malahat, or any of her colleagues, to at some time produce the

amendment which allows direct appeals to cabinet, from 1977 or any

other year.

After I spoke last evening, many members of this

august body asked me if I might perhaps go over the groundwork once

again about this appeal procedure. Members of the press spoke to me

last night and asked me if I would run over that procedure once again.

For those who may be interested, the amendment of 1977, to which the

member referred a moment ago, indeed was an amendment. She quite

correctly referred to

section 9(8) of the statute prior to revision.

That amendment permitted a person who was dissatisfied with the

decision of the Agricultural Land Commission on an application for

exclusion.... I'm sure the member for Cowichan-Malahat will be able to

read this in the Blues....

The amendment permitted a person

who was aggrieved by the decision of the Land Commission, being unable

to obtain two signatures which would grant leave to appeal to the

Environment and Land Use Committee, to ask the minister responsible for

the Agricultural Land Commission to consider whether leave should be

granted to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

direct appeal to cabinet was permitted in the original bill of 1973. To

simplify it perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it was decided with the wisdom of

the government of the day that direct appeals to the provincial

government should be permitted by a junior government; that is, by a

municipality or a regional district — direct appeals to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Also, in the wisdom of the government

which brought down the original act, they decided that appeals of Land

Commission decisions should be directed at the cabinet. Then, to cover

unexpected situations, that government of the NDP also included the

right of cabinet on its own to exclude land from an agricultural

reserve.

So now, Mr. Chairman, we have the only method of

appealing directly to cabinet under the Land Commission Act, or the

Agricultural Land Commission Act, as it's now known. That procedure

permits selected persons, municipalities, regional districts, the Land

Commission or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by way of review by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by order, to exclude lands from an

agricultural land reserve. That's the only method in which the cabinet

is involved. That was the 1973 legislation which was approved by this

House.

The 1977 amendments considering the same problem and

under the same

section — made some changes, but not in the intent of

the act. The revised

section says:

"The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on his own, or on the application

in the prescribed manner of a municipality or a regional district, in

respect of land within its jurisdiction, or on the application of the

commission, by order, exclude land from a reserve on such terms and

conditions as he considers advisable. It is the same procedure, changed

in wording perhaps to permit the cabinet to attach conditions to any

release not included in the original act, and also to point out that a

regional district or municipality could make such an application to a

cabinet, but only with respect to land within their jurisdiction. We

didn't want the city of Nanaimo making an application for exclusion on

behalf of land within the Kamloops municipality. That's how a person

may appeal directly to cabinet.

The amendments of 1977 did

not affect that except in minor modification of the language, but

indeed a problem was presented to this government. The problem, as was

illustrated by some of our speakers yesterday, was that citizens of our

land for a long period of time have been acquainted with a certain

system of justice or natural justice, and the majority of situations

suggest to our citizens that when there is an appeal procedure

established, no matter for what reason, it would seem contrary to

natural justice that the people from whom you are appealing should be

those who hear your appeal. The act as it was written — very hastily, I

might add — in 1973 required that a person who was turned down for an

exclusion application by the Land Commission could then ask the Land

Commission to reconsider it.

Well, we have to put ourselves

in the position of those members who would be on that commission. Why

would they turn it down, if later they wanted to give consideration to

allowing the appeal? It seemed to be a bit of a dead end. It was

recommended, accepted and enacted that where a person felt aggrieved

and could not, by way of application, persuade any two members of the

Land Commission that his case should be heard — not by cabinet; by the

Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, which has its own act —

the minister responsible for the act should be in a position where

[ Page 2633 ]

can hear from the aggrieved person within 30 days and decide if the

appeal should be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee, the

second government body which may hear appeals — the same body, I might

add, which was authorized to hear such appeals in the prescribed manner

by the NDP in their act of 1973. So the member for Cowichan-Malahat

today suggesting once again, as so many members on that side have, that

the act was amended to permit direct appeals to cabinet is absolutely

wrong.

I'll reiterate some of the statements which were made

yesterday. There are three bodies in the province which have the right

to hear appeals with respect to land being excluded from an

agricultural land reserve. One body is the Land Commission; they may

exclude property on their own, upon application. They may exclude

property by way of an application of a citizen or an owner. They may do

that on their own.

The second body is the Environment and

Land Use Committee of cabinet. An appeal could be offered to them by

the Land Commission, by any two members agreeing to such an appeal, or

by the minister agreeing to such an appeal. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that if we, as a legislative assembly, are going to permit

any two persons appointed to positions to determine if an appeal should

be heard, under certain circumstances, then it's not inconsistent that

an elected representative and a man or woman appointed to the position

of cabinet minister may also have that capacity to look at a situation

to determine whether an appeal is justified.

There are

circumstances where an appeal by a citizen, an owner of land, may be

heard — not just based on the scientific information which is contained

in the original application. It may be that for other reasons an appeal

should be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee to clear the

air on a specific issue. That is why in some circumstances the Land

Commission has permitted certain appeals to go ahead, even though

they've turned it down and even though the scientific information had

indicated that it was reasonably good quality farmland. In many of

those instances, such appeals have been denied by the Environment and

Land Use Committee. There can be extenuating circumstances.

The

appeal process in British Columbia with respect to this act has been

reasonably consistent since 1973. One further extension for the

opportunity of granting an appeal has been added, but no further direct

appeals to cabinet. There's only one method of direct appeal to

cabinet, not by a citizen but by a regional district, a municipality,

the Land Commission, or cabinet upon its own, and that requires an

order.

The history of the Land Commission is going on to

seven or eight years. A great deal of effort and time has gone into the

work of the Land Commission, The fine-tuning process has been underway

for a number of years, and a great deal of land is being shifted in and

out of agricultural land reserves.

The member mentioned Mr.

Gary Runka, who was chairman of the Land Commission for a period of

time. Mr. Runka has publicly stated many times that there are probably

a million acres of land within the agricultural land reserve that

should not be in the agricultural land reserve. Mr. Runka has also

stated that there are probably a million acres that are not in the

agricultural land reserves that should be put in. That's a ballpark

figure. The reason is that when the boundaries were drawn originally,

it was on an extremely large-scale basis, working from information

which was not up to date and, in some cases, not accurate. There were

innumerable examples where subdivisions had been developed, homes had

been built, but the land mass involved was put in the agricultural land

reserve because the information was out of date. The information came

from the federal government; it came from some high-level photographic

efforts on behalf of those people responsible, and the information was

not as up to date as it should have been. Nor was it that practical to

be able to get all that information together in a short period of time.

a great many inequities occurred, and that caused the Land Commission

to be in what they refer to as fine-tuning, to try, to go to the field

and have a personal look at 11.5 million acres to determine whether

they should or should not be in an agricultural land reserve. Much to

the chagrin of some of the people employed by the Agricultural Land

Commission, very often they found that land which had been put into a

reserve had already been utilized for other purposes: residential

subdivisions, industrial development, and sometimes other types of

commercial development. Well, obviously that land had to come out

because there was an imposition on that land in the land registry

office which made no sense.

The problem is associated with

specifies. I suppose it's politically convenient to point out the

failings of the opposite side in any House. We in Richmond went through

a period of time with some agricultural land — No. 5 Road in Steveston

— and it was almost comical. After the ballyhoo about bringing in this

act — which people refer to as the Land Act, but of course it's not the

Land Act — I think about 12.5 acres or more on No. 5 Road in Steveston

in Richmond, which always had been a farm.... Suddenly ICBC was upon

it. They were going to build a big centre on this land in Richmond.

"Shocking," we said. All 85,000 people in Richmond said: "Shocking.''

ICBC wanted to build a great big centre right at the end of a major

farming area. Well, they got permission to go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: From the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Oh, yes. Well, the directors who are sitting there — I'm not sure, but

I think the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was a director at that

time....

Nonetheless, that was where it was going to go.

Richmond municipal council said: "No, it isn't. You know who's the

senior government around here. You know who's responsible for zoning

around here, and it doesn't go."

So what happened? ICBC paid

$25,000 an acre for the property. Here it is sitting there empty —

empty and embarrassing. Someone said: "We've got an idea, let's turn it

into 50 garden plots" — allotment gardens, I think they called them, a

fancy name — "50 by 50 feet, rent them out to someone for $10 a year,

spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars developing the property

putting in drainage, water and all the rest of it, and then we can have

people go out and have their own little garden." People appreciated

that very

[ Page 2634 ]

much,

but at $25,000 an acre it was a very expensive experiment. However, it

was less embarrassing than seeing the property remain empty.

I'm

pleased to report to the House today that the property is no longer

empty. Unfortunately it's no longer allotment gardens, although

alternative land was found. It is now a botanical gardens and it's

going to be a great attraction in Richmond. I'm sorry, Mr. First Member

for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), it's Monsieur Massot who is putting

his botanical gardens together, because he was able to pay a very high

price, unfortunately, for agricultural land. Because he had some

commercial activities he could make use of it.

But, Mr.

Chairman, that land was to have been alienated for an ICBC station, and

it was good agricultural land, there's just no question about it. It

was in the proximity of Riverside Industrial Park, which had been

Howard Wong's farm. Somehow it didn't get into the agricultural land

reserve; all the land around it did. But then we heard about that

little deal — you give us 40 acres at half price and five or six acres

for a park and maybe we won't let the land go in the agricultural land

reserve.

But my main concern is that members of this House

and members of the public in our province understand that the

statements made by members opposite about amendments to the Land

Commission Act which permit for the first time, as they so frequently

say, appeals to cabinet.... And then these political people in cabinet

are making decisions. The first member for Victoria yesterday pleaded

that the government should stop making political decisions when it

comes to land, indicating once again that this government, for the

first time, permitted political people, members of cabinet, to hear

appeals. It's incorrect, Mr. Chairman. That authority was granted by

the NDP in 1973. It has been retained since that time. The Environment

and Land Use Committee was granted authority by the NDP in 1973; that

authority has been retained. The Land Commission was granted authority

in 1973 by the NDP; that has been retained.

Administering

the Land Commission Act is not a simple matter, because we are normally

dealing in large numbers, which may mean something to a statistician.

We don't often deal in the land itself, the quality of the land. One of

the problems associated with that is that you get an argument about the

quality of the land depending on whether you're dealing with an

agrologist, a pedologist, another soil expert of some kind, or a

farmer. A farmer probably knows more about land and its relative

usefulness in producing crops than some academics. You can certainly

sit down and analyze soil; you can do many things, but the farmer is

going to tell you about the day-to-day, season-to- season problems of

that land. It's surprising, I guess, to members opposite, but sometimes

the farmers know what they're talking about. In fact, most of the time

they do. There's still a very large number of enraged people who feel

that they simply have not had the opportunity of being heard.

But figures can tell, I suppose, almost any story that you may wish to hear

or you may wish others to hear. They talk about exclusions, they talk about

inclusions. It's remarkable that in the first five-year history, at least,

of the agricultural land reserves in our province, land was taken out and land

was placed in — you add, you take away, you redefine, you fine-tune, you alter,

you do this, you do that. You started off with 11,661,000 acres. After five

years you wound up with 11,635,000 acres — almost the same. It's compensation

one way or the other: land is put in, land is taken out. In one year alone,

1978, almost 50,000 acres was included in the agricultural land reserve. The

Land Commission, in its fine-tuning methods, recommends land be added and recommends

that land be excluded.

One

method available to citizens, of which they availed themselves

considerably, was to petition a municipality or a regional district to

act on their behalf in seeking exclusion of property. They felt it was

better to deal with the junior level of government than, in some

instances, to deal with the Land Commission. They availed themselves of

that. In many instances they were successful in having a municipality

or a regional district apply on their behalf. In some instances they

were successful in having the land excluded or perhaps permitted for

other purposes.

While this debate continues on the

responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture as the minister

responsible for the administration of the Agricultural Land Commission

Act, I would like to emphasize once again that, in my opinion at least,

it is serving no great purpose to our province or to the citizens to be

constantly given false information by members opposite. The people of

British Columbia should be advised that there is a method of'direct

appeal to the cabinet for exclusion of property from an agricultural

land reserve. The list of those who may take advantage of it is

limited. But it was introduced by the NDP. It was seen as the right

thing to do at that time. It is a direct appeal to cabinet — again

introduced by the NDP.

If the opposition is going to

constantly suggest to the people in B.C. that amendments in 1977 made

that possible, they should either provide the evidence by way of

legislation or by way of explanation.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) isn't here today because we had a bit of a discussion about this last night.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for Cowichan-Malahat wants to get up and apologize.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, I doubt that the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes to apologize. I

think perhaps some members opposite will exhibit something to which we

are very familiar, and that is rationalizing why certain opposites are

really opposite to even that. They will be able to explain how that

amendment meant people can go directly to cabinet. The lawyers can't

explain, with due deference to the members of the bar in our House, but

she can.

The people of the province, I think — those who are

aware that our House is in session and those who are aware of the

intricacies of legislation — probably deserve at least to understand,

as they peruse Hansard , that just because a member opposite

makes a statement does not necessarily mean it's accurate. As a matter

of fact, a very informal poll taken would allow a person to have

certain confidence that if a member makes a statement on the opposite

side of the House, it isn't accurate. That's an informal poll.

MR. HALL: I can show you a real poll that says something different.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Now the member for Surrey wants to get up and apologize.

MR. HALL: What about? I can apologize for you that's all.

[ Page 2635 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I thank the members in the House for their due consideration to my

remarks, and I would hope that members opposite, in discussing this

legislation, would advise all members of the House and members of the

public as to who may have been the author of such appeals directly to

political bodies known as cabinet and the Environment and Land Use

Committee of cabinet.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman,

obviously the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has had some

opportunity to bone up on his subject since when he was first appointed

Minister of Environment and given responsibility for the Land

Commission he said he could't understand why he got it since he didn't

know anything at all about it. He has had a chance to rehearse some

notes since that date.

He talks so wildly about 11 million

acres of ALR land in the province. What he forgets to mention is that

the three critical areas — the Okanagan Valley, the Fraser Valley and

the Saanich Peninsula — have in total only 800,000 acres. The rest of

it is scattered around the province. By far most of it is class 4, 5

and even some 6 land that is rangeland. When the former manager and the

former chairman of the Land Commission, Gary Runka, talked about the

need of taking some one million acres out, he was talking about the

land that is not good agricultural land but is rangeland that was put

in there to protect it for range purposes only and really doesn't fit

the definition of ALR land.

For 20 years the Social Credit

government in this province did absolutely nothing to protect farmland,

although we were losing the best acreage at the rate of 20,000 acres a

year. For the last five of those years the Department of Agriculture

did everything to persuade the government that something had to and

should be done.

When I arrived in office as Minister of

Agriculture, I found out that the department had indeed been working on

a program to preserve agricultural land. It got as far as the Minister

of Agriculture of those days, Cyril Shelford, who is no longer a member

in this House, going to cabinet with a proposal that something be done.

The Premier of the clay thought this would be great politics and

brought in the Environment and Land Use Act and didn't even put the

Minister of Agriculture on that cabinet committee. That's how little he

thought of preserving agricultural land in those days.

The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) told us

that the boundaries were set very loosely and carelessly with no real

thought going into it except some very old information supplied by the

Canada Land Inventory. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

either doesn't know or doesn't bother to mention that it took 18 months

to establish most of those reserves. There were extensive public

hearings in every one of the regional districts in the province, and

lots of time, thought and care went into the preparation of those

plans. Certainly there were some lands included, and there were some

excluded. To talk about a million acres as being important.... They

were not important from the context of saving agricultural land. There

was plenty of opportunity for everybody in the province who wanted to

bother to appear before those public hearings and make known his

position with respect to preserving agricultural land.

The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talked about the details in

the way in which the program has worked, but he hasn't talked about the

philosophy. He forgot to mention, for example, that when the NDP

administration established the first commission, they picked people who

were known provincially as having some interest in preserving

agricultural land in the province. All of the names were widely

respected in the whole province and all of them were well known. Those

commissioners were fired under this government when the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs was Minister of Environment and had

responsibility. Those commissioners were fired and were replaced in

part with people who were known best for the way in which they had

opposed the Agricultural Land Commission Act from the very beginning.

The

member of the Land Commission who represents the Okanagan area — or at

least lives in the Okanagan area — was one of the most vociferous and

active opponents of the whole idea of preserving agricultural land on

the day he was elected and, to the best of my knowledge, still is the

one who fought in the Land Commission for subdivision of the fruit

orchards in the Okanagan Valley, although the fruit growers themselves

defeated a resolution at their annual meetings three years in a row,

urging that there be greater subdivision to remove the homesight.

Nevertheless, that person was put on the commission because it was

known that he was opposed to saving agricultural land. It was hoped

that he would hurry up and get rid of the agricultural land and the

government wouldn't be faced with this embarrassment any longer. That's

the only reason. It was the only qualification he had. He was a wild

opponent of the whole idea, so they said: "Let's put him on.'' To my

knowledge, he's been working in that direction ever since.

Obviously,

this government was following the advice of the then Leader of the

Opposition and now Premier of the province when he said: "Elect us and,

in effect, we'll get rid of the Agricultural Land Commission. We'll

turn the power back to the regional districts and let them have the

same power that they had before 1972 when we were losing our best

agricultural land at the rate of 20,000 acres a year." This government

has no interest in saving agricultural land. All the details about

changing the legislation don't really mean anything. The government

obviously changed the legislation so that it could get rid of the best

of the agricultural land more quickly. At the same time they were

talking about the gross acreage that was coming in, largely in the

Peace River area, and it doesn't really matter whether they're included

in the land reserve or not., because there's no subdivision pressure on

them. This government doesn't believe in preserving agricultural land,

in spite of the speech by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, and this government is proving it by its every action.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I always enjoy it when the former Minister of Agriculture gets

exercised and gets up in the House and expounds on his efforts. The

only thing I can say is the Ministry of Agriculture is one of the most

important ministries and industries in this province. That Minister of

Agriculture got demoted to Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, and that,

I feel, is a mark against him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In my opinion, he was demoted. This is no reflection on our current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

I feel that I should come to the defence of a very dedicated

[ Page 2636 ]

man,

who serves as a commissioner on the Land Commission, Mr. Allan

Claridge, of Oyama. The former Minister of Agriculture knows full well

that the reaction of Mr. Claridge to the original Bill 42 — I believe

it was called — was to the original bill and to the fact that the

previous administration was not looking for protection of agricultural

land under that original Bill 42, but basically control of land in the

province of British Columbia due to the socialism that they were

preaching. That former Minister of Agriculture knows very well the

dedication of the man that he has so viciously attacked in this House.

He knows full well that the man who works on the Land Commission and

has served very well on that Land Commission is very concerned about

the protection of agricultural land in this province.

MR. STUPICH: If he were concerned he would have done what Runka did.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

He was concerned about the original bill, and that former Minister of

Agriculture also knows full well that with the reaction of the total

agricultural community, and with the stand that this party took as

opposition, the bill was amended and brought in as much less than what

they had originally intended.

MRS. WALLACE: And how did you vote?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I wasn't here at the time, Madam Member, but I just want to make it

clear on the record that the man the former Minister of Agriculture

refers to is a man who was concerned then and is concerned now about

the preservation of agricultural land, but certainly didn't want to see

land become state property or state controlled and the farmer become a

tenant of the state.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to some of the

other comments that were made, I referred to these previously during a

number of times I've been on my feet during this debate, and I think

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs very adequately covered

the amendments to the act and the methods of appeal under the original

act. I think he set the record very clear in regard to what has been

done with those amendments, and what the procedures are. Political

decisions are not made, but basically the amendment gives the

opportunity and the right to a property-owner to appeal a decision of

the Land Commission.

I said in previous comments I've made

that the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate is the preservation of

agricultural land. The members opposite also know that two of the

commissioners under their legislation had the ability to grant the

right of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The act was

changed to still allow them to do that, but the minister also could

allow that right of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The basic reason was that ELUC can look at the total picture with

regard to that land, as opposed to the narrow mandate of the

Agricultural Land Commission, which deals specifically with

agricultural capability. So it allowed the right of appeal, which was

already there, only two commissioners have to approve it, and the

amendment allowed for them to come to the minister for that right of

appeal, rather than just go back to the court that in effect had made a

previous decision.

In regard to the question that was raised

by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, she knows full well, I think, why

the property at Langley has not been dealt with at the present time —

the Agricultural Land Commission hasn't held hearings or done any of

the work on it, and there's nothing that can be done on this particular

issue until the court case is finalized and the statement has been made

by the judge in regard to this case that nothing can proceed with this

until the case is dealt with in the court.

The member makes

reference to a number of specific appeals. I don't have the details of

those appeals before me, but I will refer you to, again, the comments

I've made on previous occasions during these estimates where, at an

appeal, the appellant appears before the committee, along with his

agrologist, if he has one, who has done a study on the land. The land

commissioners and staff members and agrologists appear in regard to the

Land Commission's position. In some instances the regional district

and-or municipality appear before the committee. After all that

information is heard then the Environment and Land Use Committee

determines its decision as to whether to grant the appeal or not.

The

members opposite lead you to believe that nobody has any input into

that committee; all we do is sit around a table and make a political

decision. Again I repeat for the record that that is not the case. Nor

was it the case, I guess, when the Environment and Land Use Committee

dealt with appeals prior to the change in legislation, or prior to the

change of administration. They had input from all sides — from both the

person who was aggrieved and from the Land Commission. So nothing has

changed, Mr. Chairman, and I get somewhat concerned when they deal with

the political reference in their comments.

In regard to Site

C, the member opposite knows there is concern about agricultural land.

There is also concern in this province about energy requirements and

the determination with regard to Site C in the Peace River country will

be determined in due course with regard to what is in the public

interest.

In regard to the land in, I believe, the

Stikine-Telegraph Creek area, there are some 26,800 acres — I am not

sure of the percentage that is involved here — of which I would suggest

probably well in excess of 90 percent is Crown land. Also, in many

cases in that area land has forest reserves on it as well. So it

isn't.... These people are requesting it as property owners. It is

Crown land and has considerable protection at the present time. It

doesn't have the encroachment of urban development in certain areas

that the former Minister of Agriculture referred to.

The

matter of fine-tuning is ongoing and will continue to proceed in this

province with regard to better identifying what land should be in and

what land shouldn't be in. The former Minister of Agriculture refers to

three areas: the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and Saanich. Of course he

forgot the fourth, which I guess has the major portion of agricultural

land, the Peace River country.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've

touched on the items that the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke about.

The comments made by the former Minister of Agriculture were just, I

feel, in response to the excellent presentation made by the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I

thank the minister for his answers, except that he hasn't given me any

answers. Relative to this business about the act, it gave the minister

who introduced that act — the minister before the minister before the

minister who brought that act in — an opportunity to stand here and

attempt to justify something that he knows is

[ Page 2637 ]

very

unpopular. If there isn't something wrong with sections 9(8)(

b) or

13(2), if he wants a reference, then why is it that the B.C.

agrologists are asking that that be repealed? Why is it that the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, the United Church, the Women's Institutes,

the chamber of commerce, and the Canadian Consumers' Association are

asking that that be repealed? Why is it that editorial comments in the Province and the Colonist are asking the same thing?

You

know, there is a real move out there. I suspect that that minister

knows it, and he came into this House and attempted to twist the facts

and say it was already there in an attempt to justify his own

particular piece of legislation — that the second minister who was

responsible has made public statements about to indicate that he

doesn't approve of it. I think that that, Mr. Minister, is something

that you have to look at, and you're going to have to take a position

and a stand. You can't just back off it like that. I also think that

when appeals come under that section, it's the obligation of the

cabinet and ELUC to give some explanation as to why those decisions are

made, because if they don't do that they're certainly subject to

political interference.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to respond, because I guess if there was a

political approach as to how you attempt to, as the Leader of the

Opposition says, "twist the comments...." The legislation was brought

into this House by the former Minister of Environment, now the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and was passed in

this House. Ever since that time the opposition has done one thing;

they even produced a brochure which they circulated in the whole Fraser

Valley just to say that the Social Credit government was black topping

the Fraser Valley. That's political, and we can live with that; I can

live with that. But when you twist the comments that you make.... You

know full well, Madam Member, what was in that act before it was

amended. You know full well what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs.... Those members opposite know, but they're being political

and they ignore that.

They come out and say that these

specific areas should be changed because they are an injustice. They

attempt to point out to people — people who are dedicated in their own

way and people who are concerned and people who don't have the time and

can't make the effort to look back in history and see what the facts

are, and as a result they say: "Yes. what I'm being told sounds

reasonable, and this is a big change, and I want to protect

agricultural land...." So when she mentions all these bodies which are

coming forward and saying that the act should be changed, it's because

of — I'll grant — the opposition; it's because of the pretty good job

you've done in attempting to sell that particular change in the

administration. But they know full well, Mr. Chairman, that the appeals

to the Environment and Land Use Committee were there, as the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says. So what I have to do as

Minister of Agriculture and minister responsible for the Land

Commission Act is to go out to the chamber of commerce, the Federation

of Agriculture, the many other groups, and say to whatever group it is.

"Here is the rationale behind it," which I've done. Mr. Chairman, in

many instances I've been able to show the picture in its total reality,

and the people say: "Oh, well, I guess all this information we've been

getting has been a little bit biased."

MR. STUPICH:

Very briefly, the minister may rationalize all he likes, but one person

he was not able to rationalize successfully was the former chairman and

manager of the Land Commission, Gary Runka, who resigned because he

couldn't take it any longer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again

the member for Nanaimo is being a good politician. He also knows full

well that the former chairman of the Land Commission had resigned as

chairman.... He had served on a temporary basis, and then at the

opportune time for him determined that he was going to resign on the

particular issue. The member for Nanaimo knows that.

MR. KING: I have been listening with rapt attention all afternoon to the various dissertations that have been presented to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were yawning.

MR. KING:

Yes, I was yawning when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were giving their

dissertations because I thought they were rather tedious.

One

thing that did amuse me was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs pontificating in this House and condescending to explain to

this Legislature all of the nuances of administrative law and natural

justice. That was very kind of him because only the hotliners know. I

know that Pat Burns and Ed Murphy and the current minister are the ones

that appreciate all those nice little nuances of administrative law.

held that it was completely wrong that an appeal should be launched

against the Agricultural Land Commission's decision back to the agency

making that decision. He held that this was a denial of natural

justice. Were it in the criminal sphere, that would be the case. But

we're not dealing with criminal law. We're dealing with administrative

law. I want to tell you that that government, at the current moment, is

sitting silently on its hands presiding over other agencies which

pursue that policy identically. The Labour Relations Board of the

province of British Columbia has a policy of hearing appeals made back

to the board against decisions. There is no other agency with any

appeal to the cabinet over decisions made by that administrative

agency. The board makes the decision, the board hears the appeals, and

the board rules on the appeals. So for the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs to get up and say, "Well, it's a denial of natural

justice when it comes to presiding over appeals on farmland and the

exclusion of farmland," is totally inconsistent and a ruse and a red

herring. It makes no sense.

The basic difference between the

appeal that was allowed under the New Democratic Party government in

this province and the one that is available now, due to be amendment of

1977, is the fact that the land-owner or the real estate promoter,

having been turned down from having land excluded from the agricultural

land reserve, is entitled to appeal directly to the minister — a

politician. That was not the case under the NDP. He had to, first of

all, obtain the agreement of two of the land commissioners. He had to

have the basis for some further appeal, either new evidence or some

subject matter that had not been considered and dealt with in the

original decision before the commission. That's not a new thing in

[ Page 2638 ]

law

either. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows that there are

precedents for that kind of approach to appeals, particularly in

administrative law. To suggest that it was really the same men misses

the essential point that under the New Democratic Party provisions, the

land speculators and the real estate brokers could not make an end-run

around the Land Commission and appeal directly to their friends at the

cabinet level to make a political judgment as to whether the land shall

be removed or not. That's the issue. The politicians on that side can

try to mask it, they can try to submerge it, they can try to

rationalize it all they want. They can say: "Your attack is a political

one."

But I want to tell you that the chairman of the

Regional District of Columbia Shuswap is no NDPer. I want to read into

the record what the chairman of the regional board for the district of

Columbia Shuswap had to say about the current method of hearing appeals

against the exclusion of agricultural land in the province. This letter

appeared in the Salmon Arm Observer

on January 18, 1978, and it was directed to the minister. I'm going to

read it verbatim into the record of the Legislature for the edification

of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, and this is not a partisan thing:

"Dear Sir:

have received a copy of your letter dated December 22, 1977, to Mr.

N.F. Putnam, in which you advise Mr. Putnam that his appeal to the ELUC

on behalf of Seymour Arm Estates Ltd. for the complete removal of

approximately 423.63 acres from the Seymour Arm agricultural land

reserve has been approved. Even with the qualifications attached to the

approval, I consider the decision regrettable.

realize that the Land Commission Act allows no further appeal. However,

since this decision may be expected to have an important effect on

attitudes towards the Land Commission Act, especially in the Shuswap

area, I am anxious to appreciate the reasoning behind it.

"No

appeal from this region has stirred so much public interest or provoked

as much public comment as has this appeal. The considerable amount of

time and effort expended by our regional board and by the British

Columbia Land Commission in trying to reach a fair and balanced

decision on this appeal is quite broadly appreciated. Also appreciated

is the surprising speed with which the appeal to the ELUC was arranged

and the fact that the hearing on December 6 was permitted all of 25

minutes. In the face of these facts, an unfortunate side-effect from

the decision is the damage it does to the already shaky credibility of

both the regional district concept and the Land Commission. A logical

explanation of the ELUC ruling is therefore most important.

"When

I learned of the ELUC decision, I regretted more than ever my

unsuccessful attempt to attend the hearing in Victoria on December 6. I

assume that you were informed of my telephone call from Kamloops to

your secretary, advising that I was grounded there en route. I assume

also that my stated intention to support the Land Commission ruling was

read into the record of the hearing. I understand that although our

MLA, Mr. Len Bawtree, did not attend the hearing, he would normally be

given an opportunity to be heard before the decision. I feel, that, in

view of my stated and sincere regret at not being able to reach

Victoria in time, in view of the circumstances surrounding my inability

to get there, and in view of the importance of this appeal to this

area, I might have been accorded the same privilege.

"This

removal of some 424 acres from the Seymour Arm ALR leaves approximately

1,200 acres of privately owned land remaining within that ALR. It is

therefore only reasonable to expect that the precedent in this decision

will prompt further appeals not only from Seymour Arm but also from

other parts of the Shuswap area.

"If the

considerable amount of time and effort which we put into the Seymour

Arm Estates appeal produced an unacceptable ruling, you will be able to

understand the importance of us discovering where we went wrong or what

we overlooked.

"The regional board

recommendation to the Land Commission was preceded by numerous trips

into the area, by a private hearing in the regional office — which I

accorded a delegation from Seymour Arm Estates, including the

president, their counsel, the accountant, and also Mr. Len Bawtrec, MLA

— a subsequent hearing of the Seymour Arm Estates group by the regional

board, careful study of the Seymour Arm Estates brief, equally careful

study of a brief from the Seymour Arm Resident Ratepayers Association,

in addition to a number of private written submissions from residents

of the area, review of all available technical opinion of the potential

of the area, study of a very detailed report from federal Fisheries on

the importance of the Seymour River as a spawning stream, and a review

of as much of the history of the area as we were able to gather from

discussions and old literature, I presented all of this information to

the Land Commission in person, in addition to making myself available

for questioning.

"The Land Commission ruling

on our regional board recommendation benefited from yet another and

more detailed appreciation of the area by Mr. N.A. Gough, professional

agrologist and pedologist, and a final hearing of Seymour Arm Estates

Ltd. Although the Land Commission ruling was more liberal than the

regional board recommendation, we were able to reconcile it with our

understanding of the philosophy and intent of the Land Commission Act.

In other words, it was not inconsistent with the attitude toward the

Land Commission Act which the regional board has been attempting to

maintain.

"Now it appears that throughout the

whole long process of assessing the Seymour Arm Estates appeal both the

regional board and the Land Commission must have overlooked some very

important considerations, or else there has been a significant change

in the attitude of your ministry toward the Land Commission Act. I

respectfully seek to be informed.

"I must

comment on the item numbered 33 in the material concerning this appeal

which was supplied to the ELUC by the Land Commission. This is a letter

to Mr..G. Sorenson, president, Seymour Arm Estates Ltd., from Dr. A.F.

McLean, chairman, Seymour Area Property Owners Association. I am not

sure of the significance of the change in title., When I was advised of

the organization of this group in January

[ Page 2639 ]

1977 the title was Seymour Arm Property Owners Association. This

association was apparently organized in Calgary in January 1977 and immediately

claimed to represent the views of some 140 property owners in the Seymour area.

"While

I accepted this claim by Dr. McLean and Mr. Sorenson, I asked Dr.

McLean, on two occasions in writing and once verbally, for some

information on the organization. I desired to know the names of the

other members of the executive, a list of the membership and a copy of

the constitution. To date I have not been honoured with even an

acknowledgment of my request. I did not, and I do not, consider it

inappropriate to ask for this proof of legitimacy, especially since Dr.

McLean has given notice that he intends to claim the same weighty voice

in forthcoming meetings and hearings on a settlement plan for the

Seymour area.

"In the meantime, the one letter

which I have received from a non-resident property owner is quite

opposed to Dr. McLean's point of view concerning development of the

area.

"If the ELUC were satisfied as to the

legitimacy of the association which Dr. McLean claims to represent, I

shall be pleased to be informed of this too.

Yours respectfully,

F.H. Clarke,

Director, Electoral Area 'F',

Columbia-Shuswap

Regional District."

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the case is clearly spelled out there. This man, Mr. Clarke,

whom I happen to know personally as a dedicated, hard-working, duly elected

public servant and who, as far as I know, owes political allegiance to no one,

was doing the job that he was elected to do: trying to protect farmland within

the parameters of the law. He had the rug pulled out from under him and his

regional district board, as the Land Commission had the rug pulled out from

under them. And when they approached the ministry seeking the reasons for the

political decision over the heads of those duly appointed agencies, they received

silence.

is it any wonder that we on this side of the House, in addition to the

community at large, look askance when this government say they are

dedicated in any way to the preservation of farmland? When we hear the

Minister of Agriculture get up and suggest that those terrible

socialists over there never wanted to preserve farmland but were out to

control the land — what utter nonsense! What claptrap! What

desperation, Mr. Chairman, grasping at straws! He makes that charge

against our little government while the current Social Credit bogus

free enterprise government sits there in ownership and control of 90

percent of the forest land of the province of British Columbia. What do

you say about that, Mr. Minister? Okay for Socreds, but really

dangerous if it's anyone else. What nonsense! What humbug! What a

diversion! If you cannot contribute anything more intelligent to the

debate than that kind of ruse, then I say you have failed sadly as a

Minister of Agriculture in the province. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, he has

failed in his test as a frontbencher in political debate in this forum.

That's why he's on the back bench, and I imagine he'll remain there.

There

are a couple of other things that I wanted to comment on. The Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said there may be

other reasons. He said: ''The Land Commission's mandate is very

narrow." The Minister of Agriculture echoed it too: a very narrow

mandate. They just have to look at the productivity of the land in

terms of its agricultural potential, and there may be other

considerations besides the scientific ones. Naturally we should have

known that. because Social Credit historically has been biased against

the scientific and the intellectual anyway. even though they did allow

one Liberal in who had some qualifications in that regard. They've had

an inherent suspicion of professionals: politicians know best.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm prepared to accept that reasoning, provided that it is

accompanied by a written statement of the reasons. This guy who gets up

and pontificates about natural justice.... My God, one of the

fundamental tenets of natural justice is that when you're convicted or

when you're affected by an adjudicative decision you have a right to

know the basis upon which that decision was formulated. Isn't that

right? Does anyone over there deny that? If you believe in what you're

saying, if you believe that there are broader and higher reasons, have

the guts and have the gumption to put them down on paper so that the

people out there can understand what your philosophy is and where

you're going, and so that there can be some requirement for consistency

in the decisions that are made, rather than political whim.

That's

the issue here. If you happen to know someone in the cabinet, perhaps

you have a loud voice. But if you're a small individual farmer and you

have no political clout, then the chance of your getting the same kind

of ear and the same kind of action are pretty remote. If that is not

the case, all the minister has to do is give an undertaking to file,

along with every decision made, a written, public statement of the

reasons upon which that decision was founded. What's wrong with that?

recall introducing into this House, as the Minister of Labour, a

statute called the Labour Code of British Columbia. I remember being

attacked by the Socreds. This little guy in the front bench with the

hysterical voice who gets going in high dudgeon from time to time said

it was the most terrible, retrograde statute that had ever been

introduced, simply because the board had all-embracing, all

encompassing powers. I want to tell you that I would trust and I would

respect an arm's-length, quasi-judicial agency to make decisions, fair

and impartial, affecting the people of British Columbia. long before I

would ever respect and accept the political whim of that cabinet over

there. I would respect that, and I would defend that right for that

kind of arm's-length, quasi-judicial decision.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't judge all politicians by yourself.

MR. KING: I would be very happy to do that, because I'm not ashamed.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

I am prepared to tender to the minister a gold-edged invitation to come

up and speak in my constituency, because I need the votes. I think if

they ever see that minister put on one of his performances up there....

[ Page 2640 ]

Interjection.

MR. KING:

I don't know whether that's a threat or not, but I want to tell you, in

the last provincial election I had nine people from that cabinet,

including the Premier, up there campaigning against me. So I guess I

shouldn't be too intimidated by sending along that little minister, the

voice from the north. I can tolerate that.

In the final

analysis, it's clear from the letter I've read into the record of this

House that the choice farmland base is being eroded in this province.

It's clear that political clout is playing a role in the

decision-making on the release of that agricultural land. This is the

conclusion of people at the administrative level. It's the conclusion

of the chambers of commerce, the United Church and all the other

signatories to that petition submitted to the government last year,

expressing their concern at the surreptitious release, based on

political consideration, of choice farmland in this province. That's

the issue. That was never allowed under the NDP government. We were the

architects of the first statutory protection of farmland in this

province.

These people lack the courage now in government,

even though they opposed it and voted against it at that time, to stand

up and say: "We're still opposed to it." They sneak around the back

door and chip away at it in the secrecy and security of their little

cabinet chambers. That's what they do, and that's the issue that'll

come back to haunt them in the months ahead.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Just to go back through history in regard to applications, under

sections 9(l), 9(2), 9(7) and then 9(8), the Land Commission, when it

came into being.... Land reserves, when they came into being, of

course, had to have adjustments to them. Let me give you 9(

l) and the

number of applications. In 1974 there were 10; in 1975 there were 28;

in 1976 there were 27; in 1977 there were 28; in 1978 there were 27;

and in 1979 there were 13. Massive applications coming in for

exclusion? I think not.

MR. SKELLY: What acreage?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

We can get to that, Mr. Member, but I just want to point out to the

House just how the remarks that are made by the opposition....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I just want to get these figures on record. I don't care what they're

commenting across the floor, because I can get onto the acreage if they

would like, as well. I've told this House what the acreage was when you

first made that designation in 1973 and what it is today. Out of

11,661,000 it's down to 11 629,000 acres, I believe — a very small

percentage in total.

Let's go into the

section 9(2)

applications. In 1974 there were 360; in 1975 there were 463; in 1976

there were 294; in 1977 there were 295; in 1978 there were 332; and in

1979 there were 99.

The requests for leave to appeal in

regard to

section 9(7), under the old act, Madam Member: in 1974 there

were 21; in 1975 there were 9; in 1976 there were 14; in 1977 there

were 14; in 1978 there were 30; and in 1979 there were 39. Those are

requests for leave to appeal that were in the old act, and still are in

the new act under

section 9(7). They are appeals put forward by two

commissioners of the Land Commission and decisions made in regard to

the Environment and Land Use Committee reviewing them. In 1974 and 1975

— and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has now left — ELUC,

in making their decision, didn't grant the appellant the reason for

their decision; it was either a yea or a nay, the same as it is today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member wishes the 9(8)s. Mr. Chairman, I only respond to the

comments made by the members opposite because they would lead you to

believe that there has been serious political interference in this act.

Basically they've been shown otherwise, I think, by the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his excellent presentation in this

House.

In regard to the 9(8)s, we had ten requests in 1978.

Out of those ten in 1978, there were four acres excluded. I believe

those four acres excluded as a 9(8) appeal happened to come out of the

Cowichan Valley. I'm not sure whether the member over in Cowichan

Valley had an influence on that or not.

In 1979 there were 22 requests to appeal to the ELUC, and 12 were granted. Out of the ones heard by ELUC, six were approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that include the Langley one?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, I don't believe it does, Mr. Member. This is the latest statistical

report, and it was as of March 31, 1979. I believe the Langley one was

after that.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to go back to

some statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

because I think he left the House with the wrong impression as to how

the appeal procedure operates under the Agricultural Land Commission

Act. I think I have some ability to do this, because I was the debate

leader on the bill when the minister brought it down in 1977.

did not oppose all the sections in that bill. In fact, we saw some of

the sections as an improvement in the way the Agricultural Land

Commission was to be administered; for example, the requirement to hold

public hearings before lands were excluded or deleted on the request of

municipalities. We also saw an advantage in that the minister, under

that bill, gave the Land Commission the ability to enforce their

statute. In other words, they could inspect people's property, and if

they had been violating the statute they could take them to court, or

fine them, or whatever.

The one

section that we opposed in

that bill brought down in 1977 was the creation of not a new appeal

body but a new appeal procedure. Now the minister, in making his

comments, distorted what the people on the other side of the House had

said. He said that we were talking about the Social Credit government

creating a new political appeal group. Nothing is further from the

truth, and the minister knew that when he made the statement. What we

were talking about was a new political procedure to grant leave to

appeal to cabinet. The cabinet appeal system was already in effect. The

ELUC system was already in effect. But there was no political leave to

appeal to either of those groups.

For example, Mr. Chairman — and you're a lawyer

[ Page 2641 ]

you

know that under the Water Act a citizen aggrieved by a decision of,

say, the comptroller of water rights can appeal to cabinet. We have

never objected to that appeal procedure, although some lawyers have and

it's in doubt at this moment. Under the Pollution Control Act there is

a procedure whereby citizens can appeal a decision of the Pollution

Control Board directly to cabinet, as they've recently done in Keremeos

and as they've recently done in Esquimalt. The citizens have taken an

appeal to cabinet to try to reverse a decision of the Pollution Control

Board.

In establishing the Agricultural Land Commission we

stated that a citizen who was aggrieved with a decision of the Land

Commission could go to the Commission and seek some form of redress, to

have their land taken out of the reserve or to have the use allowed on

their property to be changed and to remain within the reserve. If he

was aggrieved with the decision of the Land Commission and if two

commissioners felt that there was some merit in the case to carry it on

to a political body — cabinet — then he was entitled to do so on the

authority of those two commissioners. We had no objection to the fact

that that body which would hear the final appeal was a political body.

But when the Minister of Environment of the day changed the statute to

allow political leave to appeal, that was when we objected, that was

when the United Church objected, that was when the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture objected, that was when all of these groups objected,

because the ticket to get an appeal to cabinet had been changed. The

Land Commission could only judge based on two criteria: the quality of

agricultural land and the integrity of the agricultural reserve. Those

were the only two bases on which they could make their decision, and as

far as we could see through the whole term of the Land Commission,

those are the bases on which they operated. If there was a question of

some doubt and if there was merit for a further appeal, then two of

those commissioners could say: "Fine, go on ahead to the Environment

and Land Use Committee of cabinet."

The Environment and Land

Use Committee cannot make a ruling outside the terms of the act. The

act only provides that the Environment and Land Use Committee can make

a decision based on the act itself. Quality of farmland and the

integrity of the reserve are the only two criteria under which an

appeal is allowed under the Land Commission Act. But we have a new

procedure now for getting into cabinet, and that is what we were

concerned about. The minister distorted our expression of that concern

for his own purposes. I challenge you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture to

read through Hansard for the

last few days of this debate and find out precisely what our members

said. They said it wasn't the fact that there was a political appeal

available to these people; it was the fact that there was a political

avenue of appeal.

Say I wanted to take my land out of the

agricultural land reserve — and my land is in the agricultural land

reserve. I would go to the Land Commission and I would say I had a

subdivision application on this property and I'd like to take it out of

the reserve, I'd like to make a capital gain of, say, $1 million or

something. The Land Commission would take a look at the quality of my

land and they'd take a look at the agricultural reserve surrounding it

and they would say: "No. Your land is of high agricultural quality. If

we took your land out of the reserve it would break up the integrity of

the reserve. Therefore we disallow it." Now say two of the

commissioners would say: "Well, Skelly, you've got a big gravel pit out

on the front yard there. It may be possible to subdivide that, and it's

on the edge of the reserve. Go ahead." ELUC could then make a decision

that yes, it is a gravel pit and yes, it is on the edge of the reserve

and in this special case we'll take it out. But say my land is No. 1

quality Canada Land Inventory farmland. And say my land is right in the

middle of the agricultural land reserve of the Nanaimo Regional

District. I go to the land commissioners and they say: "No way. You're

not having any subdivision on that reserve."

HON. MR. CHABOT: How much?

MR. SKELLY: Ten acres.

They

say: "You're not going to take that land out, because it's pure

agricultural land and it's right in the middle of the reserve. You

can't do it because our criteria say that's what we have to make our

judgment on." But I could go-to — it was Rafe Mair at the time, I think

— and I'd say: "Mr. Mair" — I'm talking about some time in the past,

but the member for Kamloops....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a bit of an assumption, isn't it?

MR. SKELLY:

No, because the member for Kamloops handed them out like popcorn; and

we all know that you don't hand out popcorn at the theatre, you sell it.

But,

Mr. Chairman, say I went to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) and I said to the minister: "My land is class 1; it's right in

the middle of the reserve. Those land commissioners refuse to grant me

leave to appeal to cabinet, so your boys aren't able to deal with it.

Here's my Social Credit Party card." And the minister would say: "Oh,

you do have some justification to go to a cabinet appeal, because some

of your friends are up there." And that's what we objected to about

this leave to appeal — that the land commissioners are only allowed to

make a decision based on the quality of the land and the integrity of

the reserve; but the minister, if you flash your party card to him, has

other ideas.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That happened in your administration, but it doesn't happen in this one.

MR. SKELLY:

We did not have that appeal

section when we were in office, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture. That is precisely what we're talking about in

this Legislature, Mr. Chairman — the fact that there was no political

avenue of appeal. That's what we're concerned about, and that was the

argument by our members that that member opposite distorted in making

his suggestions that we were opposing the fact that cabinet was hearing

appeals and that the Environment and Land Use Committee was hearing

appeals.

I'd just like to clarify that for the people who read Hansard

and for the people in the gallery. We have been misled in this House by

that minister in making those statements. He has either misinterpreted

or purposefully misread the statements made by our members on this side

of the House about that appeal procedure, and I would not like to let

that statement go without explanation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni has indicated that the Minister

[ Page 2642 ]

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was misleading the House. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member asks for a withdrawal.

MR. SKELLY:

I understand I can't accuse the minister of lying or misleading the

House. I don't know of any other way to do it, but I will withdraw the

way I did it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a couple of simple questions from a simple....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say that, you did. You're going to get into trouble with your own cabinet colleagues.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to get the minister's attention for a couple of simple

questions from a humble member, who is uncomplicated by all the

political jargon around this debate. I want to go back to the 626 acres

in Langley that were raised in the House yesterday, with the reference

to the minutes of the meeting discussing this. As the minister knows,

the agricultural land reserve governed by the commission included the

626 acres. An appeal was made and the 626 acres were excluded. Is that

correct?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Correct. This is a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the

presentations were made, where the minister spoke sage words. The land

was removed. There was a public outcry against what happened. The

Premier, responding to the demands of democratic citizens, said that he

would like to see the land put back in. The leader of all of British

Columbia, the Premier of this province, said he'd like to see the land

put in. Will the minister tell me if he's going to make any effort to

have that acreage put back into the agricultural land reserve? Would

the minister tell me that, please? That's the first humble question to

the minister. Will the minister be taking the instruction of the

Premier and putting that land back into the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you got another question?

MR. BARRETT: No. Is that one difficult?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, let's deal with that — one at a time. We're getting close.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I thought the Leader of the Opposition had two questions

when he got up. I was waiting for him to ask the second one as well.

If I recall, the Premier, in making the statement regarding the 626 acres,

indicated that we would take a second look. The Leader of the Opposition will

also recall that I advised that the Land Commission would have some soil analysis

taken of the land involved and would proceed with hearings, etc., and then make

a recommendation to cabinet. That procedure was to be followed if.... Again

recalling accurately, the judge involved with the court case made the statement

that there should be no proceeding by the Land Commission while the case was

before the court. That is the situation as it now stands.

MR. BARRETT: Is it the intention, after the court proceedings are over, to have that land preserved in the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, not to prejudge what the decision of the court will be, I

would assume that once the matter has been dealt with in the court the

Land Commission will carry out its soils analysis and public hearings

and then make its recommendation to cabinet as to whether all, part or

none is included in the land reserve at the present time. As the Leader

of the Opposition knows, it is frozen by an order-in-council.

MR. BARRETT:

Has the minister notified the owners of the property that regardless of

the outcome of the court, hearings will be held and that soil tests

will take place on this land, as you have just announced now? Have you

notified the owners of the property that it is the intention of the

government to act in that manner?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before the minister replies, the Chair would observe that I think we're

approaching some thin ice on the question of a matter before the

courts. The Chair would be of the view that any question to the

minister asking the minister what the government might or might not do

administratively with the subject matter of a law suit once the court

has made a determination is a question that should not be answered.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I'm always so careful. That is why

I ask this question: has the minister notified the owners of the

property in writing of the statement he has just made that he intends

to have the Land Commission do further soil tests and conduct public

hearings on that property before a final decision is made? That's what

you just said; I'm repeating what you said. I'm now asking you: have

you notified the owners of Gloucester estates that that is the

intention of the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

minister may wish to respond. But as I understood the question by the

Leader of the Opposition, it refers to an historical action — "have you

notified?" — about a future intention. I think, again, we're on very

thin ice.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I don't even have

skates on. The minister has already gone over the edge; I'm only

repeating what he said. I appreciate the legal direction that is so

excellently handled from the Chair today with the assistance of able

staff. I want to say this chairperson needs no assistance. Skills,

fortitude and patience are already being displayed. Having said that,

please don't butt in.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm asking the minister is....

just finished making the statement that it is the government's policy

that there will be further soil tests and public hearings on the 625

acres and that there's presently a freeze on the land. You said it.

It's committed to Hansard . I don't want to talk about the court

case or His Honour the judge. I want to ask you this: have you notified

Gloucester estates in writing that it is the government's intention to

have further soil tests and public hearings on this land when the court

case is over?

[ Page 2643 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like to make a correction, Mr. Chairman. It's 626 acres, not 625 as

the Leader of the Opposition comments. That's a correction for Hansard .

MR. BARRETT: I think I said 626. I thank you for correcting me.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're welcome.

The

other is that in my comments previously I did make the statement that I

would not want to prejudge the court decision. Secondly, my comments

regarding "the second look" are public knowledge; it was a public

statement made by myself as Minister of Agriculture and the minister

responsible for the Land Commission. I would not want to comment

further because the case is before the court.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the minister for correcting me on the statement of 625

acres. If I said 625, I want to humbly apologize, because my whole

political career might be sacrificed by me making that error. You might

use it against me. It's 626 acres.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You need help, I know.

MR. BARRETT:

From everywhere. And I'm not too egotistical to say that I can't

receive some help from someone. I thank the minister. Humility never

hurt me. It wouldn't hurt the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith);

he already made a major gaffe. What is the next closest religious

holiday when I can offer up another prayer for my friend from South

Peace River? It's a long time since you've been up there. They're

looking for you up there.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you protect me, please, from unwarranted interruptions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask the minister this question, as I understand him

correctly about the 626 acres. We want to get his estimates through,

because he's a busy man.

You've said that you've said

publicly that there's going to be a second look. Is that right? Did I

hear that right? Okay, we got that established. You've said that

regardless of the court's decision....

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, no, no, no, no. I'll get it straight for you. I just said I didn't want to prejudge the court's decision.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay. Let's go over it slowly so I understand it. After the court has

made a decision, in conjunction with your committed statement that

there's going to be a second look, there will be further soil tests and

public hearings related to this property. Is that correct? And have you

notified Gloucester estates in writing of this position of the

government?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Aye.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, you see, Mr. Chairman, we got the minister talking too much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, now talk — thank you.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the member is going over ground he's already covered. I

stated a few minutes ago what the "second look" would entail. That's

public knowledge. In a statement made by myself as minister I said I

would not want to prejudge the court decision. I said I had made a

public statement and that's as far as I would like to comment at this

time, because the matter is before the court. Mr. Chairman, not being

in the legal profession, I would not want to make comments that may

cause a problem with regard to the case. And I think the Leader of the

Opposition should recognize that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking him to say anything now, I'm just going over what he just said today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's public knowledge, for heaven's sake.

MR. BARRETT:

I asked if you wrote Gloucester estates a letter and told them that you

would be conducting soil tests and further public hearings on this

land. That's all I'm asking. Have you written Gloucester and told them

this?

You see, Mr. Chairman, I think he's said too much today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I haven't.

MR. BARRETT:

In my excellent probing manner, I got the minister to admit publicly

for the first time in the chamber — and I don't want it broadcast out

of the chamber until I get a chance to do it — that there's going to be

a second look.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, for heaven's sake, where have you been? It's in the press. It's all there.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay, and the second look will include soil tests. And there'll be

public hearings. If Gloucester believes that, why are they bothering

going to court? The time to go to court, Mr. Chairman, would be after

there were further soil tests, after there are further public hearings,

and after the final decision from the second look promised by the ALR

was made. Would that not be logical, Mr. Chairman? If you had the

property, and you had it taken out of the ALR and then the Premier

said, "We're going to freeze it, because we want to take a second

look," and then the Minister of Agriculture said the second look would

include further soil tests and public hearings, you wouldn't go to

court.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sit down.

MR. BARRETT: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to respond. Sit down.

MR. BARRETT: I know you want to respond, because you're a little bit boxed in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're all wet, and wrong.

[ Page 2644 ]

MR. BARRETT: Do you mean to say that Gloucester estates is going to court for fun?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't even know.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I finished the hypothesis to you, because you and I

understand each other. There's a symbiotic relationship between social

workers and lawyers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Heaven forbid!

MR. BARRETT: We know how much help you nee

I'll

finish the case. If you made the application to the Agricultural Land

Reserve, and the ALC said, "No, you can't have it," then you made an

appeal and you were told you could have it, then there was a public

outcry saying you shouldn't have it, then the Premier of the province

said it would now be frozen and they'd take a second look, and then you

were told that the second look would include soil tests and public

hearings, would you bother spending all that money on lawyers, knowing

how much they cost, to go to court — with soil tests and a public

hearing still in the offing — regardless of what the courts said?

you know what I think, Mr. Chairman? Forgive me for being somewhat

suspicious, but I believe that if the court decides at this point that

that land will stay out of the ALR, there will be no further soil tests

or public hearings. Gloucester, if it wins the court case, will be

told: "The government will not pursue this matter any further." That's

what I believe, and I have been given absolutely no shred of evidence

to believe otherwise. I believe that if Gloucester wins the case, the

word of that minister and that government will be put aside and they

will say: "We respect the court's decision. There will be no soil tests

or public hearings and that land will remain under the decision of the

court, because we, as a government" — and this is the excuse they'll

use — "will not want to go against the court's decision." That's my

prediction. Pledge me wrong, Mr. Minister. Tell me that no matter what

happens, there will be soil tests and public hearings on this land

again. Pledge me wrong. It's a simple question. Give me your pledge,

true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, he's a great

entertainer. I'll tell you you're wrong, Mr. Leader of the Opposition,

because, as you must know, the case is before the court for the purpose

of determining whether or not an Environment and Land Use Committee

decision can be overruled by cabinet. That is the case before the

court, as I understand it. Is that correct?

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

That's correct. That's the case that's before the court, but as to the

statement in regard to the second look, we have to wait until the court

decision is made. The judge of that court has stated that. If the court

decision comes in that the government was right and the land could be

frozen and a second look could be taken, then we will do a detailed

analysis, you might say, by the Land Commission, which is public

knowledge. I and the Land Commission have made a public statement to

determine beyond any doubt whether or not all or

part is agricultural

land.... Then the determination would be whether or not it would be the

recommendation by the commission to put it back into the land reserve.

Mr.

Member, the case before the court is a case regarding jurisdiction as

to whether or not the cabinet had the right to freeze that property.

That's the contention, as I understand it, that Gloucester Properties

has made — whether they had the right not to allow the land out,

because the decision of the Environment and Land Use Committee was to

let it out, and that's the decision we have to wait for from the court.

So what you're saying, in all the performance and acting you've put on,

is really irrelevant to the question at this particular point in time,

because the question as to who had the authority to do what is out of

our jurisdiction.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the more

the minister talks, the more he gets in trouble. The impression I had

at the start of this questioning was that there were going to be

further soil tests and a public hearing. That's the impression I had.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the second look. You know that as well as I do.

MR. BARRETT: That's the second look. Now we've got a new sentence and I'll bet you it's there in Hansard

and I heard it correctly. You said that the court case is to define

whether or not the government is legally right in the second look, and

if the court decides that the government was right, then there will be

a second look.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the decision of the court.

MR. BARRETT: Oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: You know that as well as I do.

MR. BARRETT: So what you're saying.... Just a minute, now....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is this Act 11?

MR. BARRETT:

We're going to take a few more minutes' time. I didn't interrupt you.

Don't interrupt me. Let's be civilized now. We're getting close to....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much.

I'm

just dealing with what I want to get out of the minister. The first

time I heard it, it was: "There's going to be a second look." The

second time I heard it, it was: "There's going to be a second look, if

the court says the government was within its rights to freeze the

land." Oh, Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy for the minister, but

the minister has been fudging a little bit this afternoon. He's tired

in his estimates and he's been giving answers that don't quite mesh. I

suspect, and I say again, that the government has absolutely no

intention of giving a guarantee that there will be soil tests and

public hearings again. I would ask the minister if he would publicly

stake his seat on that commitment of a second look. Is the second-look

commitment good enough for you to say: "If I don't keep this promise,

I'll resign my seat"?

[ Page

2645 ]

you know what I'm on, Mr. Chairman? I lay it out again simply for

everybody to understand. If the court case goes against the government

and Gloucester wins the case, this government will not lift a finger to

have a second look. That's my prediction. I ask the minister to tell me

right to my face that I'm wrong. Tell me so and stake your seat on it,

Mr. Minister. You too, Member for North...wherever you are.

Mr. Chairman, I know what the game plan is. The game plan is simply this: if

Gloucester wins the case, this government will not take a second look. This

government will not order soil tests and this government will not have public

hearings on that land. This government will allow the original appeal decision

to remove the 626 acres to stand.

want it publicly understood and on the record that in this moment in

the minister's estimates no guarantee was given to the public of

British Columbia that that promise of a second look would be kept,

regardless of the outcome of the court. That's the whole nitty-gritty,

right down into a simple thing. We know that that minister will not

stand up and give a guarantee that regardless of the outcome of the

court decision, the promised soil tests, the promised second look, the

promised public hearings will take place.

I ask the minister

this simple question. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, will

you give your pledge that the promised second look will take place with

soil tests and public hearings on this land?

It took me a long time to finally make the point and get it across.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's the point?

MR. BARRETT: The point is you have no intention of guaranteeing that there will be a second look on this property.

You

have no intention of guaranteeing that there will be soil tests and you

have no intention of guaranteeing there will be public hearings,

regardless of the outcome of the court case.

You've been

caught, simply and clearly and plainly, trying to leave the impression

that you're going to do something. Do you want to tell me that you

pledge, regardless of the out come of the court case, there'll be a

second look with soil tests and public hearings? Tell me that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Once more, the member opposite knows full well what is before the

court. What is before the court is the question as to whether or not

cabinet had the authority to overrule the Environment and Land Use

Committee's decision and put a freeze on the property. That is my

understanding. I may have the legal terminology not quite accurate, but

that is my understanding of the case before the court. That case has to

be determined. But it is public knowledge that this government stated

that they would take a second look at the property in question. That is

the reason the order-in-council was passed, to freeze the land so we

could take a second look. As the minister responsible for the

Agricultural Land Commission....

The member opposite also knows a public statement was made that the Land Commission

would proceed as though the land was not in the land reserve, just as they did

in 1973-74, and they would analyze the soil, do an in-depth survey of the