1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8687 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8687

Oral Questions

Ambulance service. Mr. Cocke –– 8687

New Cinch Uranium Ltd. Mr. Macdonald –– 8687

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Lockstead –– 8688

Fraser Canyon marketing study. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8688

Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams –– 8688

Reform of laws on liability. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8688

Forest fire fighting. Mr. Howard –– 8688

Care for victims of molestation. Ms. Brown –– 8689

Ministerial Statement

Quesnel sexual assault case. Mr. Lauk responds –– 8689

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

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8691

Mr. MacWilliam

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Motion Picture Act, 1986 (Bill 30). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8698

Mr. Lank –– 8699

Ms. Brown –– 8700

Mrs. Wallace –– 8700

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8701

Motion Picture Act, 1986 (Bill 30). Committee stage –– 8701

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mr. Macdonald

Division

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

On vote 70: minister's office –– 8705

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. MacWilliam

On the amendment to vote 70 –– 8709

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Division

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MRS. WALLACE: Visiting in the gallery today are three women

friends who came down to sample our cuisine and listen to our debate. I

would like to introduce Mrs. Thelma Roberts, Mrs. Marj Worthy and Mrs.

Irene McAdam.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Also in the galleries today is a member from

a neighbouring constituency, my buddy riding of Okanagan South. I would

like to introduce Mrs. Eileen Robinson, who is a candidate for the New

Democratic Party in that riding.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, before you get to the next item on

the order paper, which I gather is oral questions by members, I wanted

to rise to give these hon. folks opposite a chance to get into the

chamber so that various questions could be posed to them, and hopefully

expect a rational answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the desire of the member to give

sufficient time for the government front benches to fill, the matter

can hardly be described as a point of order. Nonetheless we may wish to

have a report tabled at this time.

Mr. Mowat tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour for 1984-85.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I see nowhere in

the rules or in the practice of the House where a parliamentary

secretary can table something as important as an annual report. Is the

Speaker clear that an annual report can be done? This is a prerogative

of the Crown. I know that that member doesn't get paid enough to do the

kind of extra work required of a parliamentary secretary, but surely

Mr. Speaker can check the rules — maybe recess the House for five

minutes as the Speaker reviews whether or not a parliamentary secretary

can table a statutory report.

MR. MOWAT: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I filed the same report last year for the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. LAUK: So it happened. I mean, one swallow does not a summer make. I don't think we can consider that a precedent.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member

for Little Mountain just told us that he filed the same annual report

last year. I'm a little concerned about that, because I would at least

like to have it updated by one year.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister

of Health, leadership candidate. The provincial ambulance service has ordered

crews and vehicles to literally cruise the streets like taxicabs and hang around

in shopping centre parking lots. They're forbidden to return to their station

between calls. Why has the provincial government taken this action?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's a very good question, because this is

a recent development, and I have asked for an explanation. I see no

particular advantage to an ambulance cruising, because one does not

know where the next business is going to be. You may as well be in a

central location, reasonably located to serve a broader area.

On a personal note, when an ambulance was parked in front of my home

for two and a half days, I was beginning to wonder if they knew

something I didn't or if it was anticipated service. That was all

right, I suppose, but when we had our annual picnic last Sunday and an

ambulance was cruising by the picnic grounds, I figured that they

definitely had the word in.

I will get an explanation from the ambulance division, and I hope

the explanation will be reasonable, understandable and convincing.

MR. COCKE: When the minister discusses it with the

bureaucracy, who obviously have made this decision, I would hope that

he might take lawyers into consideration. Some of them might have real

difficulty in moving around because they would be chasing empty

ambulances. I just hope that we hear a good deal more about this.

NEW CINCH URANIUM LTD.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked a question

of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I'd be pleased

to hear his answer.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I was going to wait until after

question period and not take up the time, but I'll do it now. On Monday

last the hon. first member for Vancouver East asked as to the

suspension of a stock by the superintendent of brokers and any report

made on that suspension. It referred to New Cinch Uranium Ltd. The

answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the superintendent of brokers' office was

only involved in the New Cinch Uranium investigation in an assistance

capacity to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police commercial crime

section

from Toronto, Ontario. The trading in New Cinch was never suspended by

the superintendent of brokers. New Cinch shares were halted by the

Vancouver Stock Exchange at the request of New Cinch Uranium and also

Willroy Mines Ltd., who had invested heavily in the stock on January

14, 1981. This halt continued on January 15, 1981, and was removed on

January 16, 1981, at noon. On or about February 5, 1981, trading in the

shares of New Cinch Uranium Ltd. was halted by the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, pending an investigation into recent price depreciation in

New Cinch stock. The Vancouver Stock Exchange attempted to locate their

records to confirm the exact date that trading was reinstated after the

February 5, 1981, halt, but I was unable to get that exact information,

Mr. Speaker. On February 13, 1981, Willroy Mines Ltd. brought an action

to the Supreme Court of Ontario against New Cinch and 14 other

defendants, claiming damages of $21.4 million in connection with the

sale of shares and warrants of New Cinch. On or about June 19, 1985,

the civil suit was settled out of court for approximately $4 million.

In

summary, to the first question, Mr. Speaker, the superintendent's office was only involved in an assistance capacity

[ Page 8688 ]

to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their

investigation. It is not the policy of the ministry to duplicate any

investigations which are being done by the police.

In answer to the second question directed to myself by the second

member for Vancouver East — was there an investigation done in regard

to Chem-tec and the two principals of New Cinch Uranium, namely

Applegath and White — the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were conducting

the investigation into this case, and we do not have the details of

that particular police investigation; and again, our office did not nor

will not duplicate police investigations.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the acting Minister

of Transportation and Highways. Recent reports indicate truckers are

finding the Coquihalla Highway does not suit their needs in the way

forecast by the government. Meanwhile, tourist traffic has been drawn

away from the traditional markets in the Fraser Canyon. Will the acting

minister advise whether the truck traffic on the Coquihalla Highway is

meeting projections?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that

question as notice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I

do have numbers of tourist traffic using all of the highways in the

interior which I would be happy to share with the member at some other

time, but I will take the question as notice for the minister.

[2:15]

FRASER CANYON MARKETING STUDY

MR. MacWILLIAM: The Minister of Tourism recently completed a

Fraser Canyon marketing study. I wonder if the minister has decided to

table this report in the Legislature at this time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the study has just been

completed; I have yet to see it myself. I will have a copy of that

report either later today or tomorrow, and by all means the report will

be made public. That was the purpose of doing it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

The Coquihalla Highway has drawn tourists out of the Fraser Canyon, but

it doesn't seem to provide an economical and attractive option for the

truck traffic.

What action has the minister taken to help restore the tourism

industry in the Fraser Canyon? Some of the canyon facilities have

indicated a 40 percent to 50 percent drop-off in business. I think

there has been a dramatic impact, and I would like to ask the minister

what he is prepared to do to help restore this industry.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, as I just indicated, Mr. Speaker, we

have commissioned a study to be done for that very purpose. As I

indicated, I should be receiving that study either later today or

tomorrow, so I think the answer stands that once we have had a look at

that report, it will give us some clear alternatives for the Fraser

Canyon highway.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Can the minister confirm that he met last week with

representatives of the B.C. plywood industry, and that they expressed

their concern about the unfair competition with the zero percent loan

to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with the plywood industry last week.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise the House if the

industry asked him to go to cabinet and reconsider the whole

unfortunate loan to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a good meeting with the plywood industry last Friday.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding they had a

good meeting with the minister, and that the material they were being

provided with had to be rewritten during the meeting to tally with the

facts.

Can the minister confirm that the plywood industry also indicated to

him that it was their view that this major grant to Louisiana-Pacific

was an item that could face countervailing action by the United States,

and that that was their judgment — that is, the leaders of the entire

plywood industry of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a very productive meeting with the plywood industry of British Columbia last Friday in Richmond.

REFORM OF LAWS ON LIABILITY

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General. The Law Reform Commission of British Columbia

reported last year on the poor state of B.C. laws regarding personal

liability under a mortgage or agreement for sale. The commission finds

that many people have been found unexpectedly and unjustly responsible

for mortgages that they no longer hold. As the minister well knows, I

brought this issue to his attention last year. Has the Attorney-General

reviewed the Law Reform Commission recommendations, and what actions

has he decided to take at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: While it involves future policy, I'm happy to

say that that is under active review, and that making some change in

the future to alleviate the situation of an original mortgagor has

appealed to the government, but it has to be done in such a way that

commercial undertakings are not put in jeopardy, and that there is

certainty in the disposition of land. The recommendation of the

commission is a good one, and one that we are actively considering. So

as far as I can talk on future policy, I'm encouraging.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTING

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Forests, I wonder if I could ask the acting minister a question. Given

that there were two major fires last fire season in the Canal Flats

area, burning some 27,000 hectares of land and costing some $8 million

or more to put out, could the minister could advise that, in spite of

that experience,

[ Page 8689 ]

there are still only three people assigned to

forest protection in the Invermere forest district, the same number

that were assigned last year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very pleased to take that question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: Another question based upon the same factual

circumstances: can he confirm that of the five forest fire detection

lookouts in that district, only one of them will be permanently staffed

this fire season?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to have the Minister of Forests look into the member's facts.

MR. HOWARD: One further question then. Could I also ask the

minister why it is, given the experience last year, that the government

is still gambling with the properties and lives of people in that area?

CARE FOR VICTIMS OF MOLESTATION

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources,

on behalf of the children who were the victims of molesting by their

schoolteacher, and who we've been told have been assigned assistance by

the minister for six months. In the event that it turns out that six

months of treatment is not sufficient, would the minister be prepared

to extend that period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly a six-month question falls within a future action.

MS. BROWN: No, I said "has he decided?"

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have to draw the line somewhere,

and it would hardly be reasonable to expect that actions six months

from now would not be future action. With the greatest of respect, hon.

member, we have to draw.... It's a line that I seldom draw, but in this

case, hon. member, six months....

MS. BROWN: Has the minister decided at this time to extend

the services offered to those children to be sure that they will get

the treatment for as long as they need it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I gather we're speaking of the children at

Ashcroft specifically. I would think that it is an obligation to see

these children receive such treatment as may be required to assist them

in overcoming their difficulties.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the Attorney-General

made a ministerial statement, and indicated that the second member for

Vancouver Centre would be making a response at a later time. The Chair

understood this to mean the same day. I indicated at that time that I

would review the matter, and that the practice would not establish a

precedent. It is my opinion that such a procedure ought only to be

allowed by unanimous leave, although on this occasion I am prepared to

allow the deferred response.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity. I read with great interest the Hansard

of the Attorney-General's report on the allegations with respect to the

handling of a sexual assault case in Quesnel. The allegations that were

made and that I reiterated in this House with respect to the handling

of the case by the judge and by the Crown stand. I have received a copy

of an investigation by the Chief Judge, and I'm not satisfied that that

investigation addressed the issues.

However, two points should be made. One is that the allegations were

brought to the judge's attention prior to his hearing any of these

matters. He was asked by the district judge to disqualify himself. It

was not my characterization of that warning or directive that it

concerned only one of the accused; my

interpretation is that it

concerned them all. In spite of that, the judge heard a case brought

forward ahead of the date set for its hearing, the one of Wade Joyal.

The facts as read in by the Crown and as seen clearly by the transcript

were read in by the Crown in a most inarticulate and, I would suggest,

incompetent fashion. But there remain the facts that are clear, as read

in by the Crown before Judge Cullinane. There was a sexual assault.

There was a physical assault causing bodily harm. There was blood on

Joyal's clothes, and the blood was the young lady's blood. The Crown's

role was most unsatisfactory. The sentence was unacceptable.

Further on the Crown's role, Mr. Speaker, Joyal and Larson, it has

now been disclosed by the Attorney-General, had made a deal with the

Crown that if they were to plead guilty to common assault, they would

give evidence against the other two accused — "queen's evidence" is a

phrase that's often used to describe this kind of bargain. Under the

circumstances I would expect that the Crown would have received sworn

statements from these two accused before this bargain was made. And if

she couldn't recall some of the events, and that's conceded by the

transcripts, couldn't they...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair seems to

recall that at one time there was a statement that this matter is being

considered for appeal. Is that the case, hon. member? If so, the Chair

has an obligation to....

MR. LAUK: There are two persons under appeal. I am not referring to them. This is not sub judice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. As members can

appreciate, this is a matter of some concern to the Chair and, I'm

sure, to the members.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the appeals of the two accused,

Reimer and Lorntsen, were argued before the court of appeal last

Friday, and no decision has been handed down. While I'm sure that the

second member is endeavouring not to refer to them, it seems to me that

he is making allegations as to evidence and canvassing evidence, and it

may well be evidence that relates to one or the other. This is the

difficulty I have as an Attorney-General in responding in the House at

this particular time and when I made my statement. But I do not believe

that it's appropriate to canvass the evidence in this place. I would

urge you so to rule.

[ Page 8690 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only do what it has the power to

do. Individual members have a responsibility.... Nevertheless, hon.

second member for Vancouver Centre, in light of that situation, could I

ask you, in discussing the situation, to canvass the matter without

reflecting on what is currently before the court.

MR. LAUK: I will respect that, Mr. Speaker, and I will not

canvass the evidence. The plea bargain is not part of the appeal; it's

a sentence appeal. But I just wanted to raise that point that evidently

there was not adequate preparation by the Crown to achieve the goal of

having the two persons who received light sentences for reduced charges

give evidence against the two who are appealing their sentence only,

not their guilty pleas.

Now that is a serious error, and the answer is that nobody cared in

this case. If she were a white girl from a prominent neighbourhood....

Mr. Speaker, I want this on the record, and I am going to repeat it. If

she were a white girl from another neighbourhood who was raped and

assaulted by four persons, can you imagine the outcry in this province?

Can you imagine the outcry if it were in Oak Bay? Victoria would not

settle down to this day. This case is not over, not just in the Court

of Appeal.

[2:30]

No one has mentioned the young girl who comes from one of the

tiniest little Indian villages in the province. I read with interest

the newspaper interview, and I'll just read some of her remarks,

because she didn't get an opportunity to give a victim's statement. I

won't talk about the evidence that was quoted in the press, but I do

want to read what she said: "After it happened...."

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just say

again that a quorum of the Court of Appeal is considering the fitness

of sentence and haven't brought in their decision. Now to read in this

place a newspaper account of what this victim may have said to a

reporter is not proper and appropriate when an appeal is pending.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is in a

very difficult position. I am sure the second member for Vancouver

Centre must recognize the obligation of the Chair both to uphold the

rules and to uphold the member's right to speak in this place.

Hon. member, I would again caution that the matter is currently

before the court. The member, for example, may wish to defer or ask

leave to defer on a statement until the matter is concluded. There may

be some other alternative, but I would ask that the member please

consider the position in which the Chair finds itself, not wishing to

make an adverse ruling against a member's right to speak in this

chamber or the right of a trial to proceed without comment in this

chamber.

Hon. member, the Chair is in a most difficult position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and

dealing with the issue that you have raised, I have here a quotation

from the fifteenth edition of May, and I am quoting it: "A matter,

whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought

before the House by motion or otherwise."

Then from this particular ruling this statement is referred to, and apparently this was a statement made in New South

Wales — a long time ago, in 1932, but it is as relevant today as it was

then — by the late Sir Daniel Levy who was then Speaker. The Speaker

said this: "It's not for the Speaker to microscopically sift the

relevant from the irrelevant evidence, but to liberally apply the sub

judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule

was intended to obviate."

It carries on:

"There is nothing mysterious about the word sub

judice. A matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a

tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that matters

sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a motion is

twofold. In the first place, it might be inferred that a breach of this

rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to the court, but also might

be considered" — this is very true, it could be considered this way,

and I know the hon. member would not wish to have that happen — "as an

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

influence the court, an attempt of the Legislature to influence that

very distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary.

And in the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her

Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper tribunal."

I think that is the matter that is facing you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre wishes to

comment? If not, hon. member, I will have to reserve some decision and

have this particular line of response conclude.

MR. LAUK: I won't deal with the matter, although I am not

sure it is sub judice. The matter appeared in the press on Monday, June

9, 1986, and it wasn't my interview of the victim. It was the

statements she made. It was clearly in the press on June 9, which was

two days after the appeal had been reserved by their lordships of the

Court of Appeal. I will not refer to it. She has not had an opportunity

to be heard in court here or anywhere, and it was only through the

sensitivity of one newspaper reporter that part of what she has to say

has been published.

We owe it to her, and that is my point. I won't canvass it. I don't

want to endanger the judicial system any more than it has been

endangered. As I say, this case is not over, and we owe it to her, and

we owe it to all the young women who may come after her from tiny

little Indian villages all across this province. No one has mentioned

her. We're protecting judges. I got phone calls last week from friends

of the judges and so on. I regret very much the pain that I may have

caused that judge and his family, but the issue is clear to me. She

didn't give a victim's statement; no one has heard her.

I just urge all hon. members to read some of the comments that were

reported on Monday and reflect upon our attitudes towards justice in

this province. If this young lady's painful experience can help us in

any way, it is to have particularly people in power reflect upon how

administration of justice is carried out.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8691 ]

MR. PARKS: We have with us, attending in the members'

gallery, a member very active in the Social Credit Party of New

Zealand. I would ask the House to join me in making welcome Mr. Adrian

Bayly.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the

new precedent that's been established today — that is, the deferred

response to a ministerial statement — I would like to move that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) have an opportunity of replying to

the deferred response of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the matter

of responses to ministerial statements has not changed. The Attorney is

free at any time to make a further ministerial statement on any matter,

as is any Crown minister.

MR. CHABOT: It may not be as opportune to respond at a later

date as it is right now, and that's why I made my motion, which I think

you should take into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly the preface by the Chair on the matter

was that no precedent was set. This was an exception. It was indicated

as such at the opening, as the Blues will show.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that my motion is out of order, and are you so ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has refrained from having

to make a ruling since we brought the new rules in, much to the credit

of each and every member of this chamber. We have from time to time

passed opinions which have been followed, I must say, to the credit of

all, rather religiously.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Columbia River knows that a back-bencher must make a two-day....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's the matter with the House Leader? Are you itchy or edgy or something?

He knows that he has to give notice for two days prior to making a

motion in this assembly. If he gets that right, then I demand equal

rights.

MR. SPEAKER: No such right was afforded, hon. member.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I seek the right to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall right be granted?

MR. REID: In the precincts today we have two people. One of

them is a well-established businessman in Newton in Surrey, Fred

Davies, here with a representative from Auckland, New Zealand, Mr.

Brian Jones, who has developed the new process for panel construction.

Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $188,992.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Before we recessed for lunch I was discussing

some of the concerns with regard to agriculture in the Okanagan and, in

fact, throughout British Columbia. I'd like to reiterate a couple of

salient points from that earlier discussion in order to bridge the gap.

I had mentioned that between 1981 and 1984 British Columbia

experienced the greatest decline in agricultural assets of any province

in Canada. During these same years the net worth of B.C. farms declined

by more than $765 million, while at the same time interest rates on

farm mortgages had increased significantly. In June 1985 the Farm

Credit Corporation reported that 53 percent of British Columbia farmers

were experiencing what it considered either moderate or severe

financial stress; 53 percent is the highest number of any province in

Canada. At the same time, the average income in 1984 for British

Columbia farmers was only about $8,700. I think the figures show very

plainly that we have some severe difficulties in our agricultural

industry.

I think the response of this government has been inadequate. In

fact, it has been backwards in attempting to resolve the problems. The

government has cut back on two programs, the farm income assurance and

the partial interest reimbursement program, which have provided the

most basic support for our farming community — cut back on those

programs at a time when farmers were experiencing increased debt

financing.

I guess you can't expect, Mr. Chairman, much else from a government

whose Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) some time ago stated — and

I'll read you the quote: "Small farmers represent only 10 percent of

the vote, and they don't really count politically." I think that

statement is very indicative of what the present Minister of Finance

had indicated some time back.

There are solutions at hand. I think the government....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. House Leader, the member for

Okanagan North has been recognized. You shall have your opportunity to

stand in debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You should be carried away, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we all get carried away, would the member for Okanagan North please continue.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The government should be taking measures to

strengthen the agricultural credit system, through a flexible program

to meet the needs of the farming community. The partial interest

reimbursement program

[ Page 8692 ]

should be rehabilitated. Farm foreclosures, I

think, should be prevented — or forestalled, at least — by developing

mechanisms to help those farmers in severe financial difficulty to

restructure, consolidate and reduce their debt load. Also I would

suggest that a complete review of the farm income insurance formula be

instituted in order to recognize the increases in production costs and

the reality of the present situation.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, in view of the federal government and the provincial

government plunging headlong into the free-trade negotiations.... In

light of that situation we have some concerns about what is going to

happen to those values that have been expressed. The marketing boards,

the income assurance program, the interest reimbursement program — are

those programs in fact on the chopping block? The Premier has said that

everything is on the negotiating table. I'd like to ask the minister

whether those programs are also on the negotiating table, and whether

those programs are in fact in danger.

Mr. Chairman, the previous Minister of Agriculture said late last

year to a meeting of local agriculturists up in the Okanagan that any

free-trade agreement for B.C. must be comprehensive, fair, and

equitable. He also said that the marketing boards provide a benefit for

both producers and consumers. "They" — meaning marketing boards —

"work, so why get rid of them?" I'd like to ask the present minister

what his position is with regard to the protection of the marketing

boards, of the income assurance program and of the interest

reimbursement program, in light of the free-trade negotiations now

going on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the matters raised by the

member for Okanagan North have been canvassed a number of times

already. If he wants to know my response, he'll have every opportunity

to read the Hansards when

they come out. I don't believe in wasting members' time going over the

same ground time after time, so I recommend that the member read the

Blues or the Hansards when they're finally published.

On the matter of free trade, it's being negotiated by the federal

government. We have our input with them, and they are aware of that.

The member mentioned reduction in farm income assurance. I don't know where he gets the information but it's not correct.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just made an

allegation in the House that my information is not correct, and I'd

like him to expand upon that statement and explain what is not correct.

The background information certainly is correct with regard to those

programs being on the negotiating table with the free-trade talks. I

think the minister would also agree that those statements are correct.

In clarifying the matter, I wonder if the minister can expand upon his

statement.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, everything is on the table

in free-trade talks on both sides of the border. The free-trade talks

of Agriculture of the province of British Columbia. I hope the member

will understand that. I said his facts were incorrect when he talked

about the reduction of farm income assurance. The premiums paid by

government this year are higher than they were last year, and that is

not a reduction.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With regard to the income assurance program

and the present marketing board structure, which are presently on the

negotiating table, would the minister advise this House whether he is

prepared to sacrifice those programs in pursuing free-trade talks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If the member will read the Hansards or stay in the House....

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, the minister reiterates that I

have to review Hansard, but the minister's former statements in regard

to this matter I don't think were clear at all. I'm trying to clarify

just what the minister's position is with regard to farm income

assurance and the marketing boards.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the marketing boards for

the various commodities in British Columbia are in place and will carry

on as they are. Farm income assurance is in place and will carry on as

it is. I have no further comment. I don't know what the member is after.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Will the minister advise whether he has any

economic impact studies as to the effect of free trade upon these

particular sectors of the industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, my ministry has reviewed

all the implications of free-trade discussions. The province of B.C.

has, through our government, expressed its views to the government of

Canada and will continue to do so.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would

be prepared to table the results of those studies that he indicates

have been done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, no documents may be tabled in committee, only in the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

would ask the member for Okanagan North if he would make a commitment

to table, when the committee rises, the quote that he made from the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and its source.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will attempt to do so. I know they've been taken from my records and I'll try to research them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made it up.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Absolutely not. It was in the Vancouver Sun .

AN HON. MEMBER: Then table it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Okanagan North has the floor.

[ Page 8693 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, with regard to another problem,

the provincial government has been involved with issuing some loans to

a rabbit-processing firm in the Fraser Valley area that goes by the

name of Ra-Bitco. Apparently an interest-free loan of $25,000 was given

in 1980, and in January '82 a further five-year loan for $85,000.

Apparently this firm has received a total of $110,000 in interest-free

loans, which apparently they have been unable to repay. It's my

understanding that this government is looking at restructuring this

loan portfolio and has hired a consultant as of last January. It's my

understanding that one of the options was actually to write off the

loans or to renegotiate the terms, and I would ask the minister what

decision has been made in this regard.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, no decision has been made to this date.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise if grants

of up to $50,000 have to be approved by the minister,

whereas loans

have to have Treasury Board approval. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The limit after which Treasury Board approval is required is $100,000.

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the minister's information, a firm in the

Okanagan Valley that goes by the name of Silverstar Meats, attempting

to locate in the Enderby area, has been attempting to receive financial

assistance both through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development and other ministries. They have run into some very severe

problems in terms of trying to get some financial assistance to

initiate a rabbit-processing industry. It is my understanding,

according to principals of this industry, that Ra-Bitco is alleged to

have been using loan money that they have received through the Ministry

of Agriculture to subsidize the purchase of rabbits in the Okanagan.

Again it's alleged that this is to squeeze out the new firm, Silverstar

Meats, which has been attempting to establish a market in that area. I

wonder if the minister can advise whether he would be willing to

investigate that matter.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's amazing to me, if the member has the

type of information that he alleges to have, that he has not brought it

forward. We need not wait until my estimates are in the House before we

can look into matters that may be adversely affecting anybody in the

agricultural business.

MS. BROWN: I just have two very short questions to place to

the minister. I'm wondering what's happening to the aid to

underdeveloped areas — that agricultural fund which I know was

eliminated. Then, I gather, there's $200,000 in the budget to be used

in this way.

It's difficult to talk about it because the report hasn't been

tabled for this year, and I gather it probably won't be tabled until

after the estimates have been concluded. But maybe the minister could

reveal something about how the $200,000 is being dispensed, what

countries are getting the benefit of it and what projects in those

countries are receiving assistance from us at this time.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm afraid I have to advise the member

that I don't have such a breakdown with me, but I'll be very happy to

provide it to her as soon as my staff can get it.

MS. BROWN: The criteria for application for that fund — would

it be possible for that also to be made available? Also, would the

minister be able to tell me whether requests on behalf of countries can

be made by members of the Legislature, or whether there is some system

of dealing directly with the countries themselves?

The reason I'm raising this, Mr. Chairman, is because I've just

returned from a business visit to Jamaica, and I know that there is a

project there which is being sponsored by a home for girls. One of the

things that they're looking at is the possibility of establishing a

dairy herd and looking for funding to carry that through. I'm wondering

whether this is the kind of project which the government would be

interested in and which this fund would see as meeting its criteria, in

terms of this fund being of assistance.

The Business and Professional Women are maintaining and supporting a

home for young adult females. One of the ways in which they are trying

to do this is by being self-sufficient in terms of food. One of the

things that they have in mind is establishing this dairy herd. I'm not

sure whether a project of this nature would come under or meet the

criteria established for receiving funding from this particular fund.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm advised that various help agencies

are normally the vehicles by which applications are made. However, I

don't think there's anything that prevents anyone from bringing forward

a proposal. I understand that they have to be in by July so that a

three-member committee, chaired by my deputy minister, can then review

the various proposals and set priorities on the basis of the proposals

that are made. But I don't see anything that prohibits the member from

bringing something forward and recommending it to my ministry.

MS. BROWN: What I will do is suggest that they make their

application directly to the minister, and I will just write a letter of

support along with it. It will be before July, if that is okay with the

minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Whether it goes directly to me or directly to the committee, Madam Member, is irrelevant.

MS. BROWN: My second point, very briefly, has to do with the

flats in Burnaby which, as the minister knows, are the richest

agricultural land to be found anywhere in British Columbia, and maybe

in the world, since we are going into hyperbole — or hyperbowl, as one

of the people seeking the leadership says.

The problem we have with the flats is that without thinking of the

long term, permission was given to run a freeway, the Marine Way, right

through the centre of this very rich land. What I have observed is that

part of the land on one side of the freeway is still being cultivated

extensively, On the other side of the freeway, that land has been

abandoned. My concern is that without being protected in some way, it

could be used for industrial development or something other than the

growing of food, which is so important. It is very valuable and very

good arable land, and it would be a pity if that land

[ Page 8694 ]

were lost to agriculture. I am just wondering

whether the minister has any knowledge about what I am talking about,

and whether there are any plans to ensure that that land never leaves

the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would have to assume that

if the land is of that good agricultural capability it is within the

agricultural land reserve and thus is protected.

No one can give anyone assurance that something will never happen.

But whatever criteria are used to determine whether the plan stays in

or is removed from the agricultural land reserve, I am sure it would be

used if there was ever any attempt to remove the land for other uses.

All the conditions and circumstances surrounding the application would

have to be considered at that time.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: The only reason I raised it is that already land

was taken out of the reserve to give permission for this freeway to be

put through it. That was a mistake in terms of protecting the land. It

is good for the cars and the trucks and the buses and everyone else who

now have this beautiful expanse of roadway to use. But in terms of

using that land for growing food, it was a mistake to have permitted

that land to have been released from the agricultural land reserve. To

prevent another such mistake being made, I wanted to bring to the

minister's attention that it is always in jeopardy. That land is always

in jeopardy because it is so close to the Fraser River, and it is so

ideal for industrial development. So keep an eye on it, because I

intend to keep an eye on it as well to see if we can protect that land

for future use as agricultural land.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of issues that I

want to raise with the minister, and I am hoping that I can deal with

them fairly quickly and that the minister will be able to provide

answers as quickly.

The annual debate on these estimates always comes around to this

business of compensation for farmers whose crops and animals are

affected by wildlife. We have established pretty clearly that the

farmers of this province have enough financial difficulties now without

having to face the added costs incurred through wildlife damage.

I have raised this year after year, Mr. Chairman, and we have never

had any action on the part of that government. I heard just the other

day of a farmer way up in the Kootenays somewhere who was most

concerned about the $12,000 to $15,000 annually it costs him because of

damage due to the elk in the area.

At the very least, it seems to me, the government should at this

point be willing to compensate farmers where we are expecting to

preserve that wildlife. In other words, we have designated some

wildlife species as endangered species. The farmers are not able to

deal with the protected swans and some of the Roosevelt elk and others

that are protected at this stage, and yet they have to bear the costs

of the damage that occurs on their farms as a result of this protection.

Now it is obvious that we want to protect the animals, and it seems

to me that we as a society want to ensure that they are protected. Yet

the farmers are bearing the costs of this protection, and it is quite

unfair. I know one of my constituents sent a bill to the ministry a few

years ago representing some $7,000 because of the damage done to his

fields by the protected trumpeter swans. I'd like to know what the

minister and the government is prepared to do on that issue — whether

anything has changed at all or whether the farmers are going to have to

continue to bear the costs of that damage.

Another issue that I'd like to refer to is the closure of the Mrs.

D.L. Milne Cannery up in the Summerland area, the last processing

facility for fruits in the Okanagan. I think it's sad that this cannery

was closed down, and I think it's a step backwards in terms of

agriculture in this province when we have that sort of thing happening.

I would like to know what sort of action the provincial government has

taken with respect to that closure — whether they are just going to

accept this or are attempting to have that cannery reopened in any way,

shape or form. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, and I would like

to have the minister's comments.

The other interesting thing about this is that there is funding

available for establishing processing plants in this province. At the

same time, we are endangering that whole area by our unwillingness at

this stage to protect the farmers in those free-trade talks. Any moneys

that are expended at this time, I guess, could be considered in

jeopardy. But that's an aside.

The next issue that I would like to raise relates to the crop

year in order to be eligible for any kind of assistance under the

special drought program that was made available up there. I think it's

unfortunate that so many of those farmers are going to have to

immediately pay in crop insurance payments virtually all they are

collecting through the special drought program. They need the money

desperately. It's understandable that farmers in the area have

discontinued their support of that program: (

a) they feel it should be

improved; and (

b) they simply do not have the kind of income to enable

them to join that crop insurance program. It's being forced upon them

at a time when they desperately need that money to recover from last

year's drought.

Number four. I've raised three issues with the minister. I'll raise

number four at this stage, and then perhaps he would make some comments

on the issues. The question of pesticides is one that has always

worried me, and I've raised this issue year after year. I raised it

under the Ministry of Forests estimates as it relates to forestry, and

at the same time recognized that it is the farmers of the province who

are by far the greatest users of pesticides. I would like the minister

to indicate to me this afternoon that he shares my concern about the

effects on the environment of the widespread use of these particular

products. I would like the minister to indicate that, like me, he is

not convinced that adequate testing is done, nor that alternatives are

sufficiently explored. Hopefully the minister will indicate to the

Legislature this afternoon that it is indeed a concern of that ministry

and that additional interest will be taken in research into

alternatives to the widespread use of pesticides.

It has now become very clear that about 80 percent of the cancers in

the world are from environmental causes, and it seems to me that we

have been far too lax in our approach to testing, in our approach to

the use of various chemicals, and have spread herbicides and pesticides

far too liberally through our environment. It's high time we took

another look at it, and that we ensured that we did all of the research

necessary to come up with the alternatives to the use of pesticides in

the environment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the member's points in reverse order, starting with number four — that is, the use

[ Page 8695 ]

of pesticides. I don't share the member's view that

adequate testing is not done. Very extensive testing is done by

Agriculture Canada before insecticides can be used. I have more faith

in their testing procedures than perhaps the member has. However, I

think we should always keep our minds open and try to find different

and perhaps better ways of enhancing the growth of agricultural

products.

There are allegations that certain chemicals are carcinogenic, but

let me assure the member that if it were not for the use of chemicals

in the form of herbicides and fertilizers, a great number of people in

the world would be going very, very hungry, and starvation is just as

serious a problem as perhaps a threat of diseases caused by herbicides.

I believe in the proper and judicious use of herbicides and

insecticides and I think they are a very vital tool to the agricultural

community. They do have to be properly controlled and properly used.

I will stand by the decision made jointly by my predecessor, the

member for Chilliwack, and the federal Minister of Agriculture that

drought assistance programs should be tied to crop insurance. If we do

not do that, we will have the real prospect of destroying our crop

insurance program. Because if those people who paid for crop insurance

were to benefit from their purchase of crop insurance and their

expenditure and other people who did not were to receive the same

benefits, then very, very soon the crop insurance program would not be

subscribed to by anyone. I think that the people who do take out crop

insurance would feel very upset indeed if protection was provided for

those people who chose, as a management decision, not to purchase crop

insurance.

The cannery that you mentioned was closed by the owner. It was

noneconomic. I was not aware of the situation until you mentioned it.

I'll be very happy to have a look and see why it closed. I understand

it was noneconomic, but unfortunately I have no knowledge of it at this

time other than a few words given me by my staff. But I'll have a look

at that situation.

Wildlife compensation: really, compensation for wildlife damage to

agricultural crops is a matter for the Ministry of Environment.

However, I will support the need for protecting the investment of the

farmer, particularly when animals are transplanted from different

areas, such as elk in certain areas. I do have a problem in the

Princeton area with elk feeding on the very precious hay which is grown

by the farmers for feeding their beef cattle.

I understand that Environment is still wrestling with the problem.

We not only have it in terms of elk but in terms of deer in orchards

and many other conflicts and interfaces. I do support the farmer's

position; he must take whatever normal measures are needed to protect

his crops from normal wildlife in the natural environment around him.

That is one of the costs that he would have to realize as he gets into

the business. But from time to time the management of wildlife is such

that populations increase, and it is a threat to agricultural

communities. I will continue to support the farmers' position with the

Ministry of Environment.

MS. SANFORD: Regarding the crop insurance, I just wanted to

point out to the minister that it's unfortunate that so much of the

money that they're getting under the program in order to keep them

alive and surviving financially will have to be fed back into the crop

insurance program at this time. I'm not saying that crop insurance is a

bad thing. I think maybe the minister misinterpreted what I was saying

at that point.

I want to refer also to the fact that the minister talks about

Agriculture Canada doing the testing of all of these herbicides and

pesticides. That is not the case. The testing is done by laboratories

for the companies that manufacture the pesticide. I think there is a

very big difference between having Agriculture Canada do this testing

and having labs that are working for a company manufacturing the

product undertaking the testing. We already know about the falsified

results that were produced by some of these labs in order to satisfy

the people who were employing them, namely the manufacturers of these

products. As a result we were given herbicides and pesticides with

falsified results in terms of the safety of the product.

Getting back to the Peace River for a moment. I'm wondering whether

the provincial government is undertaking in any form any additional

assistance that might be required or will probably be required by those

people as a result of the U.S. farm bill. The U.S. farm bill is the one

that the United States has brought in in order to compete with or

undercut the prices that the EEC — the European Economic Community —

are able to pay their farmers for the production of grains. There is no

doubt that the grain producers in Peace River are going to be facing

about a 25 percent cut in the price that they receive for their

product. I know the federal government is looking at this and has

indicated they might have a bit of interest in this area, but I'm

wondering if the provincial government has undertaken any studies of

the impact that it might have, if there are any kind of programs being

developed that might assist those farmers, because it's going to have a

major impact on that Peace River area.

The next issue, Mr. Chairman, relates to Vancouver Island

specifically, and relates also to the beekeepers on Vancouver Island. I

don't know if the minister is aware that there is a big concern in

North America concerning a parasitic mite that has infected the bees of

North America; at least in the United States it's been a major problem.

As a matter of fact, in the state of Florida they killed off all of

their honeybees in an attempt to destroy this particular mite.

[3:15]

On Vancouver Island, where we produce about 1.5 million pounds of

honey.... And most of it is sold on the Island, by the way; you can

compare that with the 1.6 million pounds that's produced in the rest of

British Columbia. You can see it's an industry here that has some merit

and has some value. The beekeepers on Vancouver Island feel that we

have an ideal opportunity here to guarantee a mite-free bee if we

prohibit the import of these bees from the United States. They feel

that if you ensured that the bees were not imported onto Vancouver

Island we then would have a supply of bees that were free from this

parasitic mite.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the provincial government has been

saying: "Well, sure, but they can do it on a voluntary basis." But

you can't have an area that is quarantined, if you like — if you could use

that term in this particular case — if you're going to have it on a voluntary

basis. I'm wondering if the minister will look at that. I know that the

beekeepers are very concerned about it. I'd appreciate some comments on

that as well.

The other issue that I wanted to raise with the minister, which is

getting a lot of publicity these days, relates to irradiated foods.

There again the minister may be quite satisfied with all of the studies

that have been done on the impact of irradiation on food, in order to

try to preserve the shelf life of that food. There's no doubt that

there is enough evidence

[ Page 8696 ]

that indicates concern about this particular

process. I think the minister responsible for Agriculture and Food

should be looking at it and should be willing this afternoon to give us

his thoughts on irradiated food and the sale of that food in B.C.

It's not a new process, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that it is by

any means a clear issue at this stage that it is perfectly safe to

irradiate foods with massive amounts of radiation. There's no doubt

that these irradiated foods are changed in nature as a result of that

irradiation. A million rads are used at times in order to preserve the

food. As you know, there is a plant that's being established in

Richmond, which will be opening very soon, with respect to irradiated

foods.

The chemistry of the food is changed; that's clearly understood.

There are also what is termed URPs, Mr. Chairman, that appear in

irradiated food and do not appear in any other food — only that which

has gone through an irradiation process. The URPs are unique radiolytic

products. These products, I think, are still unknown enough in terms of

their long-term effects on people who eat irradiated foods that the

minister should be looking at it and should be concerned about it. The

very least that we should do is to ensure that food that has been

irradiated is at least labelled, and we haven't had that assurance yet

in this province.

Now there's an international symbol that is used. I would like to

see not only a symbol but wording to the effect that the food has been

irradiated and that it is the use of cobalt and other things that are

used to irradiate that food. Nutritional values are affected when food

is irradiated, and I think that should be of concern to the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. So there's enough unknown about the impact of

irradiated food that I would like to have the minister make some

comments on it as well.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought up

an additional three subjects. Regarding the U.S. farm bill and the

effect it's going to have on grain prices in Canada, I can't answer

that question. I do know, however, that as a result of the U.S. farm

bill and the reduction in price which is then being bottom loaded by

the government of the United States, the grain producer there will not

receive any reduction in his income.

treasury of the government of the United States or not, but I guess

that's what we're talking about. We in my ministry are in dialogue

constantly with the federal government. The federal government is

planning some action; it hasn't been resolved yet just what it will be.

But I would hope that at some point we can get away from the problem of

taxpayers in one jurisdiction competing with those in the others, and

let our farmers compete with one another, because our grain producers

can certainly compete with any in the world.

The problem with the little mites on the bees I don't know very much

about. My ministry field and special crops branch is investigating and

working with the bee industry or the honey industry on the island to

try to first of all define what the problem is, how serious it is, and

then if there is a serious problem, to take whatever action is

indicated at that time.

I don't know much about irradiation of foods, although our people

are aware that there could be some potential problem. I'm not saying

there is, but there are things that we don't know. They are also having

dialogue with the Ministry of Health. I don't know what URPs are. I

know that URPs and SRSs and NDPs can be a problem from time to time,

but just how serious I don't know.

MS. SANFORD: It's nice that the minister wants to be

facetious this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but there is a lot of genuine

concern on many of these issues, and it seems to me that the flippant

way in which he responded at that point is an indication of his

interest in this whole area not only of irradiated foods but of

agriculture and food as far as the province is concerned. It only

confirms that the motion of non-confidence in that minister that we

introduced this morning was the right thing to do.

As far as the impact of the U.S. farm bill on the Peace River

farmers, the answer is: "We're not doing anything." That's what I got

out of what the minister said.

As far as the bees are concerned: "We will take whatever action is

necessary;" but he has not indicated that he is prepared to prevent the

importation of bees from the United States on to Vancouver Island to

ensure that we have a mite-free bee here on Vancouver Island. It could

be a big asset to the producers here, because then they could ship

those bees....

Well, he gave me no indication that that would be the direction in

which he would head in terms of protecting the bee keepers on Vancouver

Island.

Moving on, Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture that they feel that there is some urgency to the

introduction of agricultural protection legislation. That has not been

forthcoming this session. The session is getting on and we have not

seen any legislation which will ensure that those farmers are protected

under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Last year the farmers agreed to support amendments to the Municipal

Act regarding greenbelts, green zones and that kind of thing, on the

understanding that the government would in fact introduce agricultural

protection legislation. They are now appealing and saying that it is an

urgent matter, and I'd like to know whether or not that legislation is

ready, whether the government intends to introduce it before the end of

this session and proceed with it, or whether it's another broken

promise to the farmers of this province.

The other thing I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, relates to the

ALDA program. I've had brought to my attention that off-farm income of

spouses of farmers who are applying under the ALDA program is

considered as part of the criteria for obtaining that ALDA loan. Now it

is unfortunate that farmers whose spouses might work off the farm....

Most of them have to work off the farm these days in order to survive.

Perhaps a nurse or a teacher might be working off the farm. That income

prevents the farmer from qualifying for the ALDA program. I would like

the minister to consider eliminating that criterion of eligibility for

the ALDA loan.

The next issue relates to the agricultural fair. There is space that

is being sold at the agricultural fair, and I would really like to know

what happens to the money that is brought in as a result of the sale of

that space. Does it goes back into the Ministry of Agriculture, or is

it used to offset the costs of establishing that fair?

I wonder if the minister could also tell me what is happening with

the soil conservation program. There is money set aside under the ARDSA

program this year to try to begin a program in this province, belated

though it is, of soil conservation. It is a very important issue, Mr.

Chairman, and I

[ Page 8697 ]

would like the minister to give us some information about what is happening in that program.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the agriculture protection

act is not ready yet. I had a discussion with the executive of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture in Penticton about three weeks ago. They know

exactly where we are with it and are not unhappy. They realize that

with the change in the ministers during the time when the bill was

being developed, there were delays. I don't think it is going to be

ready this session, but they understand that and know that we are

working on it. It has to go through the legislative process, and if it

passes all the tests required, then it would be forthcoming. But other

than that, I can't really discuss future legislation, because it is

still being developed.

A $50,000 or more family off-farm income disqualifies a person for

the ALDA program. Less than that and I guess they are not disqualified.

Food Pacific '86 is being operated by a Crown corporation called

B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. Moneys have been advanced to that

organization for the purpose of putting on a fair. Any revenues coming

back will come into that Crown corporation and will either be returned

to the government or some of it will be left there because we are

planning on having such an exposition every second year, and there will

be some ongoing costs of B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. I don't know in

detail what financial arrangements will be made, but the money does

come back to them, and the decision as to where it goes after being

returned to B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. will be made at a later time.

[3:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know about the

full-time equivalents in the ministry at this time. I know that there

have been cutbacks in field operations throughout the province. The

full-time equivalents are listed this year at 498, yet the salary

amount that is included for those full-time equivalents has gone down

significantly. I am wondering how the minister intends to ensure that

there are 498 full-time equivalent staff when in fact the amount of

money set aside to pay for them has dropped.

Another question relates to the aquaculture program. Could the

minister advise whether it is a $1 million program within the ministry,

or is it $700,000? Because I have seen two conflicting figures on this,

and I would like to know exactly how much money the government has set

aside for that aquaculture program.

The other thing that I would like to raise with the minister is an

appeal, I guess, to expand as much as possible — through the community

colleges or through whatever other method the minister can establish —

training programs for farmers. Farming is a very complex operation even

at the family-farm level these days. I know that many farmers could

benefit from training programs. I spoke to a veterinarian not long ago,

Mr. Chairman, and he indicated to me that it is lack of knowledge in

many cases that causes the problems that he is called out to attend to.

He is called to a farm and finds that the animals are all suffering

because of malnutrition and because of lack of information in terms of

the ability of that farmer to ensure that the animals are property

nourished. It's impossible for the veterinarian to make those cattle

and those animals well unless the farmer understands what nutrition is

all about. That's the kind of thing, and it seems to me that this is an

area where the training program could be widely expanded and farmers

encouraged — maybe some kind of financial encouragement — to undertake

a year, or two years even, of courses which would ensure that they are

efficient and as effective as they can be on the farm.

Maybe the minister would like to comment on those.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last year, 1985-86, we had an allocation

of 498 FTEs at roughly $7.5 million. This year it is the same number of

FTEs, and the cost is just about $17.7 million, so there is no

reduction in the amount, according to the information I get from my

staff. Last year our budget for agriculture was $300,000. It's

increased by $700,000 to a total this year of $1 million.

Training programs. All I can say is that — not directly through my

ministry, although we do have assistance in terms of technical advice

to people throughout the province who are field officers — the Fraser

Valley College is instituting an agricultural program. I guess there is

some controversy as to whether that campus should be at Chilliwack or

Abbotsford, but there is a program being developed. Our people in the

ministry will be working very closely with the college to provide some

training services to young farmers. Perhaps we can also help them with

more sophisticated management programs than they've had in the past.

MS. SANFORD: There are only another couple of issues that I

would like to raise with the minister. I guess these are more of a

philosophic discussion than anything else. It seems to me that we as a

society, and certainly the minister as the minister responsible for

Agriculture and Food, might consider looking philosophically at the

whole issue of food production in a slightly different way. I know it's

difficult for the minister to change his philosophy or even to consider

a new philosophy at this stage, because I think most of those ideas

over there are pretty ingrained. But we have people like Bishop Remi de

Roo, who raises.... I hear a groan over there already. It's

unfortunate. As I said, I was right. They're not prepared to consider

any new philosophies or any new approaches to the whole question of

agriculture in this province. But we have situations where we are

mining the land; we have situations where we're putting on far too many

pesticides; we have situations where there is salination of the soil

because of the excess use of fertilizers. We have situations where

damage is being done to the very land that grows our food. We also have

situations such as Bishop Remi de Roo points out; we live in a world

where people are going hungry, and at the same time we have farmers who

are going broke. Now I think if the minister considers that for a

period of time, maybe we can get some new ideas and some new directions

in terms of agriculture and the way that ministry should be operating

as a result of that.

But why is it that we continue to mine the soil and, in many cases,

abuse the soil? There's an excellent

article that I read not long ago

which describes cultivation and traces the root of the word

"cultivation." It comes from "cultus," which means to care, and it

means to care for the land on which we grow our food. It talks about

the most successful kind of farming being the farm where the farmer

relates to his land and relates to the product that he grows, and is

not totally consumed by the technological changes that take place and

by the total necessity to mine the soil in order to survive financially.

[ Page 8698 ]

There are a whole lot of philosophical issues — and I realize that —

that have to be considered in discussing this kind of approach. But

farming is a valued way of life; it's not just a business. I think that

too often these days we look at farming as a business rather than as a

family operation where we care for the soil, nurture the soil and

ensure that we don't abuse or mine it. The accusation has been made by

people other than me, people like Senator Sparrow, who headed the

Senate committee that looked into soil erosion in Canada and talked

about the problems relating to mining the soil. What happens is that we

take a very short-sighted approach and look at the problems of today

without looking down the road. When you think that in 70 years the

prairie provinces have lost half the topsoil that took 50,000 years to

create, then you know it's time we had a new approach, and a new look

at the Ministry of Agriculture and its approach to the farming

community in this province.

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $73,305,168 — approved.

Vote 7: Milk Board, $337,134 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,062,157 — approved.

Vote 9: agri-food regional development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $8,500,000 — approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no quorum. A quorum call shall be made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MOTION PICTURE ACT, 1986

HON. MR. SMITH: It's a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill 30,

which looks even better in light of the last week. The purposes of this

act are simple and straightforward. It is to continue the procedures

for the regulation of motion pictures intended for public exhibition,

to introduce a new scheme for the regulation of adult videotapes and to

limit their availability to young persons.

This did not come about by any flash of bureaucratic lightning, but

as a result of a tour and listening to the people in the field and in

the industry. By the industry I mean the retailers, the major

distributors, the many groups that attended. Some of them were women's

groups, some were religious groups, some were community groups, some

were a mixture, and many of these people also had presented good briefs

before the Fraser commission.

As a result of that tour and hearing a number of submissions and

briefs, we came up with what I believe is a bill that balances the

various interests and gives the public a regulatory scheme which is

workable. Indeed, the video industry itself very clearly wishes to have

some regulation. We had cautions, of course, when we were out there

from the business community and also from a number of concerned

residents. People warned us not to set up a scheme that would be overly

bureaucratic and cumbersome and expensive — some censorship scheme. We

looked at the experience in other countries such as Britain and

Australia where all video material, regardless of content, is subject

to classification and censorship. This points out the problems

associated with over-regulation. We also looked at American experience

and Canadian experience, and we decided that this B.C. model would be a

very good one.

In British Columbia, there are approximately two million videos in

circulation through about 725 retail outlets. To regulate all videos,

regardless of their content, would constitute clear over-regulation. A

large portion of these videos would be identical to films that are

already passed by the film classification branch. Most do not contain

any contentious material. I see no reason to spend public money to have

all of these reviewed and to have people going around pulling discs out

of stores and putting little decals on them.

[3:45]

The video industry itself has long been concerned about the current

status of the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code and the fact

that there have not been clear guidelines and still aren't until the

legislation before Parliament is passed. Indeed it will after that. The

industry proposed and supported a system of regulating adult videos at

source — that is, at the manufacturing level — before they're

introduced into the retail market.

Based on those recommendations and representations, we have a good

regulatory scheme. That regulation will be the responsibility of the

director of film classifications. She is already in place and already

has a staff. The act defines the material that's absolutely prohibited,

including sexually-explicit scenes involving young persons under the

age of 18 and sexually-explicit scenes involving violence and other

acts that are particularly repugnant to the bulk of the population.

The act also defines the type of material which has to be submitted

for classification. All distributors of video material, the companies

which duplicate master tapes for distribution, will be required to be

licensed and to submit copies of their adult tapes for approval by the

film classification office prior to distribution. At the same time, all

the retailers will be licensed, and a retail outlet may not offer an

adult video tape or film for rent or sale unless it has a special adult

film retail licence. The licence will have conditions attached. The

main condition is that they won't be able to display or offer for sale

or rental the video to minors.

I would have preferred not to have had to require the regulation of

all video retailers; that is, those who choose not to carry adult

videos. That would have been my choice. But in order for this scheme to

be effective it is necessary to have

[ Page 8699 ]

a universal licensing system. We will ensure that

the licensing fees for non-adult videos will be significantly lower

than those for adult outlets. These licensing procedures and the power

of the director of film classifications to suspend or cancel licences

will provide an effective administrative sanction to ensure compliance

with the new law. So it's a licensing scheme, instead of the Criminal

Code, which we will employ, and I think it will be very effective.

An indication of the seriousness with which the government views

this matter are the penalties provided for in the act. Where a

prosecution is necessary and appropriate, the maximum fine under the

act will be $10,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, but the major

sanction will be the licence.

I think this bill strikes an effective balance between the clear

public demand for the regulation of sexually-explicit video materials

and the protection of freedom of speech, because this act also

recognizes the need to protect materials intended for legitimate

artistic, scientific or educational purposes.

In establishing in law criteria for editing or prohibiting materials

in film and videos, the new act meets the requirements, we believe, of

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In conclusion, this legislation is an important step in limiting the

availability of pornography in this province and doing so in a rational

and supportable way.

As part of the appropriation to be made under this act, my ministry

will be undertaking a public educational program aimed at encouraging

individual responsibility for the control of pornography, and informing

the public of the new law and the responsibilities of retailers under

it. In light of recent reports concerning young people being major

consumers of pornography, and particularly video pornography, I am

concerned that we encourage parents to be more aware of what their

children are viewing and for them to exercise appropriate control.

This act will prohibit retailers from providing adult materials to

the young. But it is still ultimately a parental responsibility, and we

must not lose sight of that; the state cannot do everything that

parents are unable to.

On the basis of my discussions with individuals and groups

throughout this province, I know that this approach to regulating adult

video material has the support of the general public, and I am

confident that we will have the support of this House as well. I move

second reading.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is in support of Bill

30 in principle. We feel it is as the Attorney-General has stated, a

rational response to the demand to curtail particularly pornographic

materials relating to children and violence.

I have a word about free speech which I wanted to enter into the

debate on. The difference in this bill and the one recently tabled in

Ottawa reflects, I think, an effort on the part of the Attorney-General

to solve the problem, rather than, as in Ottawa, to create a political

move of some kind. I would urge upon the Attorney-General that he take

a copy of this bill and send it along to the Minister of Justice in

Ottawa.

However, there are some difficulties with some of the sections of

this bill which will be raised in committee. The question of freedom of

speech always arises when governments start to regulate the production

of literature and other forms of communication. We in a democracy

always feel that it is our primary responsibility as individuals to

make decisions about what we will read, watch and hear.

It is offensive to most people in a democratic society to have Big

Brother government tell you what you want to watch or what you can

watch or hear. Freedom of speech, however, is guided, if you like, by a

sense of responsibility, and the question of harm to people is a

government responsibility. Pornography involving children and violence

clearly is a harmful activity within our community, and there is a

widespread demand for governments to act in controlling it.

The question of freedom of speech therefore has its limitations. The

law of libel and slander is also a limitation on freedom of speech, and

the law of sedition and so forth is a limitation on freedom of speech.

Few, if any, public leaders would attack those laws, arguing that it

curtails the Charter's right to freedom of speech and communication.

So in that sense we agree with the Attorney-General's approach to

this very complex matter. The

definitions are always difficult, and we

all know, from studying the history of censorship, classification

guidelines and so forth, and also the Criminal Code provisions with

respect to obscenity, that

definitions are very difficult. The words

can never be as precise as we would like to have them, and people

sometimes fall within them or are prosecuted or regulated in a way that

was not anticipated by the legislators.

So I think it is important to put on the record in Hansard

what is contemplated by this bill, and certainly in reply the

Attorney-General can correct me if I am wrong. It is an attack on the

sexually explicit material concerning violence and children. That is

the primary attack. The other matters that are mentioned in the bill,

such as incest and bestiality and necrophilia, are matters which I

suppose might as well be in there, but they are not matters that I have

seen come up in the public debate as being a problem in society. In

other words, I assume from that that not much of that junk appears. But

it is wise to place it in there.

I can foresee difficulty in

interpretation of the

definitions,

insofar as the

definitions include a widespread description. It can be

interpreted, for example, that a film.... A recent Italian film Oedipus Rex concerns incest. Someone can interpret the definition to include Oedipus Rex .

That has to be reviewed by perhaps not the film classifier we have

today, but a film classifier years from now. Bernice Gerard, let's say,

becomes the film classifier. How would Bernice Gerard look at Oedipus Rex ?

Oedipus Rex concerns incest; that's offensive. It seems, and only

seems, to be included in the act. That is not, I am sure, contemplated

by the legislators on both sides of this House in supporting this bill.

It becomes a more practical problem when you have outlets such as

the retail outlet Videomatica, which some members in this chamber

patronize. Videomatica is one of those outlets renting videos that

provide classical films and also films that are foreign-made and not

necessarily shown in our theatres. Therefore the fees involved for

reviewing those films that may be unique, imported by Videomatica for a

limited audience, could be so high that those of us who want to watch

foreign films may not have that unique opportunity if such an outlet is

shut down. I'm getting to the practical aspects of it; I'll deal with

it in a little more detail under the sections where I think this

problem may arise.

The other question is that it should not be interpreted that this

bill in any way focuses in the same way as the recent bill tabled in

the other House this week. That bill is totally unreflective of

Canadian standards. It is a cynical, political

[ Page 8700 ]

piece of nonsense. It did not address in any way

the problem, and it has ignored virtually all of the findings and

recommendations of the Fraser commission. The Attorney-General has

already put some distance between himself and that proposal, and I

concur in that.

Those are my remarks on the principle of this bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all we should

probably pay tribute to some of the people who have struggled over the

years — and it has been years — to get this piece of legislation on the

floor of this House. I can't believe it actually is here. I suspect

that I'll pinch myself and find that I'm asleep somewhere, dreaming

that we are finally, at last, dealing, even in an imperfect way, with

something that so many people have worked so hard to achieve.

So I think we should talk about Jancis Andrews and we should mention

the Coalition Against Pornography. We should mention the Fraser

Institute and some of the people who served on.... No, not the Fraser

Institute, sorry. Don't mention the Fraser Institute, please! Let's not

mention the Fraser Institute, but certainly the Fraser commission, Joan

Wallace and some of the people who served on that commission; and also

the Justice Institute, which held a number of important conferences and

brought Professors Donnerstein and Malamuth here for a one-day

conference on this important issue.

It's been a long time. It's been a very slow process. There have

been a number of court cases that had to be dealt with. There have been

some that haven't been dealt with. We've gone through Red Hot Video,

and even up to the present day we still have problems in terms of some

of the material which is being used and shown and rented through some

of the video outlets.

[4:00]

But I'm really pleased this bill is here and that the opposition is

supporting this piece of legislation. We have been told over the years

that, like the poor, pornography is going to be with us always, that we

can't do anything about bringing it to an end; we can't eliminate it;

we can't eradicate it. That argument has always been used as an excuse

for doing absolutely nothing. I'm glad that as a result of the

continuing pressure brought to bear on this government by a number of

people in the women's movement, as well as concerned men in other

areas, the government has decided to try to limit anyway, if not

eliminate, the development and the production and propagation of

pornography. I agree that there are some problems with the bill, and we

are going to discuss them when the bill goes into committee, but I want

to thank the minister for not making the mistakes made by the federal

Justice minister in introducing legislation that went too far.

Certainly he is quite correct in saying that the legislation brought

down by the Justice minister two days ago makes the opposition to this

bill that was building disappear — I hope — because it is so much more

rational and so much more sensible in its approach than that of the

Minister of Justice in the federal House.

I am particularly interested in the

section of the bill dealing with

public education. I have some concerns about the very limited funds

that have been earmarked for this, and hope that when the minister

closes debate — or maybe when we debate that particular

section — he

will indicate whether this is just the beginning in terms of funding,

whether this is just seed money, and whether there is a lot more money

out there that the government is prepared to spend in the whole area of

public education. That's important; that's even more important in many

ways than legislation dealing with limiting. What we don't want to

happen is pornography to go so far underground that it can't be touched

by any kind of laws at all. The one way of protecting ourselves against

that is through the whole process of a good and effective public

education program.

A number of groups met with the human services committee of the

opposition and raised concerns about the cost involved in having their

material looked at by the classification board. The minister was not

clear in his introduction as to whether the full cost would be borne by

the government, or whether some of the smaller groups.... I'm thinking

of groups like Women in Focus, for example. Their funding is so limited

it's almost non-existent. They are primarily involved in the business

of making movies or videos specifically dealing — they have women

film-makers, particularly — with issues of concern to women, including

the whole area of female sexuality. They have some concern about having

to submit these films for censorship because of the cost. What would

happen to a small, poorly funded organization like Women in Focus if

they had to submit all of their production to the classification board

and if there were a cost attached to it? I know Sara Diamond also

raised some concerns again about film-makers who do not have access to

large budgets and large sums of money and about the costs that would be

tied to having everything classified.

I know that my colleague mentioned Videomatica, and there were some

veiled threats about Videomatica having to close. I would be hurt if

that happened to Videomatica, because I buy all my operas through them,

and they are one of the few places in town that carry these particular

videos for sale. I'm not as concerned about their adult movies — if

they couldn't bring them in anymore. I'm not as concerned about that as

long as they could still bring their operas in, so I'm being very

selfish about this. I know that I was approached by telephone about

this, and two questions were raised. Would all of their tapes have to

be viewed? Would everything that they bring in have to go before the

classification board? And what about the cost involved? They too

operate on a limited budget, so they would have some problems in

meeting the expense.

Other than that, I am prepared to deal with the legislation in

committee and to repeat that I am happy that it's finally here, that I

recognize that it's a small step but it certainly is a step in the

right direction. I think that if the government is serious about its

commitment to its public education program, we might find in time that

this kind of legislation is no longer necessary.

MRS. WALLACE: Just very briefly, I want to commend the

Attorney-General for bringing in this piece of legislation. As he may

recall, I dealt with this subject matter last year in the form of a

private member's bill in the hope of prompting him into such action,

and I hope that it perhaps worked. I'm very glad to see the legislation

here. It certainly has some problems. It's a very difficult piece of

legislation to draft because you're required to walk such a fine line

between what is necessary for the protection of British Columbia

citizens and the rights of individuals. I think we can offer some

improvements and we're going to try to do that. I hope the minister

will keep the same open mind to the suggestions we make in committee as

he has to the constant urgings from this side of the House to bring

this legislation into being.

[ Page 8701 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Just in closing debate, I very much

appreciate the comments of the three members who have spoken. Some of

those comments I'll probably deal with more specifically in committee.

The public education part of the bill is a serious one, and we will

certainly be budgeting to spend some money on that in this fiscal year.

It's not a window-dressing matter. We consider it an important approach.

I think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will find that the groups

she's concerned with — groups like Women in Focus — which might have to

come forward and pay fees, if they did have to come forward with any of

their material.... It's not certain that they would, because much of it

would fall within the artistic category. Certainly the vintage films

and the art films would not be ones that the motion picture branch

would be interested in reviewing, but if a viewing was involved in

something like that, the fee would be waived; there's provision under

the act to waive the fees. We're not interested in trying to regulate

vintage or art films that come in, particularly motion pictures that

are known and have already been reviewed by this very same branch as

films for movie showing. We're really looking at new releases.

Of course, hon. member, unless they fall within the definition of an

adult video in the act, we're not going to review them at all. We're

only reviewing the adult material. In practice I think this will work

well.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 30 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MOTION PICTURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairman, I'm having some difficulty in the

definitions

section because this relates to the question of reviewing

fees, and with smaller operations this may be impossible.

The question of Videomatica has to be broached. I don't have shares

in Videomatica, I don't have a business interest in it, but it strikes

me as a classic example. This is a single business. It's importing

films that are not likely, as the Attorney-General said in debate, to

have been reviewed already for theatre distribution, and therefore the

cost of such reviews could be prohibitive. That could include almost

all of their films. Foreign films quite often depict explicit sexual

scenes, and I'm not sure what "explicit sexual scenes" means. Is it

actual sexual scenes, or it is simulated explicit sexual scenes, which

you find quite often in modern films from Hollywood, Paris, Rome,

London? Some of these films are not already reviewed for distribution.

So a small operation like Videomatica has to send, let's say, dozens of

these films to the classifier for review. Perhaps a policy indication

now about whether or not the fee would be waived or not could be made

for such a small business.

As I say, if you go to subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (

b) of the

definitions

section — "incest or necrophilia...." What about

Oedipus Rex ? Does that have to be reviewed? That play, 2,500 or 2,300

years old, depicts incest. There's also the question of those who

appear to be under the age of 14, or who appear to be under the age of

18. There are problems with those

definitions.

Perhaps policy statements or guidelines should, in consultation with

the classifier, be published as soon as possible, so that the industry

knows where they stand and what films to submit. I take it that you're

not going to have policemen wandering into these outlets,

random-checking films and so forth. You're going to rely, because of

the heavy penalty of losing a licence, on the judgment of the retailer

and the distributor to submit these films for review. They've indicated

to me that they're just going to have to bundle up all their films and

send them, unless there are some published guidelines fairly quickly.

Those are the areas that I would question, and I ask the

Attorney-General to provide us with his thoughts on these matters.

HON. MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in response to the general

question of how the administration will operate, you will not be

required, if you're a retail distributor, to submit all your current

stock. In time we're going to publish a list of adult material in

current stock, which will be circulated to retailers. We've already

gone quite a distance in getting that ready. So the retailer will get a

list saying: "This is adult material." Therefore, when the act comes

in, that adult material will have to be put in an adult section, in

accordance with the regulations, and not made available to children.

We'll also circulate a list of stock that has, in our opinion,

prohibited material as well; and we'll give a chance for this to be

removed. That is going to be handled in that fashion.

The new material that comes in, that hasn't entered the province

before, is only going to be submitted and looked at by the branch if

it's adult. If it's an Oedipus Rex , it's not going to be looked at by

the director, because the director is already aware of Oedipus Rex , and

is aware that it has artistic, historical and educational value and

qualifies under 5(5). Of course, I'm not telling the director how she

would rule; I'm just suggesting....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, of course, a Shakespearean scholar like yourself would probably, I would think, be a....

[4:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, a scholar of Bacon or Edmund Spenser or

Ogden Nash, or whoever did write it. I'm sure that he'd be a

compellable witness, and a very useful witness, when it came to giving

us evidence of the artistic merit of Oedipus Rex .

There is the scientific exemption in 5(5). And then — I realize I'm

anticipating sections — there's also the exemption for film societies,

which will cover, I think, some of the groups that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

[ Page 8702 ]

was concerned with in her remarks in second reading. You also asked me about.... What did you ask me about?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: What is "explicit"? We will have to define in

the regulations some of this terminology. We will have to set out

guidelines as well. We intend to do both. And we intend to have a clear

definition of what explicit sexual activity means — as clear as it can

be defined.

The attempt here is to be clear, and everything that is not defined

in the Act will be defined in the regs, and there will be some

guidelines spelled out as well. I don't think that I should probably

attempt to give those today, but I'll just undertake that we will give

you both guidelines and clear regs.

MS. BROWN: The question raised about "appear to be" in

subsections (

v) and (vi) is very important, I think, in terms of

retaining that. It was raised before the Fraser commission and I know

it has been raised with the Attorney-General a number of times that

even using people above the age of 14 or 18 but dressing them in such a

way that they appear to be children is an issue which is of major

concern to us. So I think the question of "appear to be" is one that

has to be protected. It cannot be lost when the regulations....

Okay. And the same thing with the snuff films where murder is

simulated. The simulation or the appearance is as damaging as the real

thing, and you have to be sure that when the regulations are drafted

those two areas are retained in the regulations.

MR. LAUK: Surely my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you rising to object?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I object to them both. This is a conspiracy

here. Surely my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds is not suggesting that

the five hundred and.... What about Rambo and all the rest of that

junk? Is that a simulated snuff film? He kills 37 people before the

credits are over. You see the bullets going through the heads and

everything. Now that is simulated snuff films in a sense. Or do you

mean a film that is designed to give the audience the impression that

an actual killing is taking place? Is that what the Attorney-General

understands?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would the Attorney like to address that question?

MR. LAUK: Did you hear my question, Mr. Attorney?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I did. Don't underestimate the power of concentration even in this place.

The snuff films will be covered in 5(3)(

g) because they are

materials which include scenes of brutality or torture, maiming or

dismemberment of persons or animals that are portrayed with such a

degree of reality and explicitness that the scenes would, in the

director's opinion, be intolerable to the community. So it is not a

fair stretch from that to say that.... That was designed for the snuff

films, that section. If you are sawing off somebody's arms during

lovemaking, you are obviously caught by that section. It doesn't really

leave much to the imagination of the director of film classifications.

I mean, it's so explicit. It's unbelievably explicit.

MR. LAUK: I had one more question, but I am going to abandon it for fear of another answer along the same lines.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairperson, I wish to move an amendment to

section 5(3)(i). I want to ask the committee to delete paragraph (

i) which states: "Conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a

regulation made under 14(f)." I have a similar amendment for 14(f),

if I could table that. Delete (i).

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: This

section really does offend the concept of

taking away from the Legislature the power to review again, with

perhaps updated information on community values, and changing standards

of quality and types of films and materials that are produced.

The director can "remove or require the removal of, by erasure or

otherwise, any portion of it that depicts... (

i) conduct or an

activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under

section 14(f)."

That's how it reads. Now that gives the cabinet the power to prescribe

any conduct or activity that it feels like. It's a wide-ranging power,

and it's totally unacceptable in legislation anywhere, particularly in

legislation that's so sensitive and....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could we have one meeting, please. I'm sorry, Mr. Member. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am trying to attract

the attention of the Attorney-General, as indeed you are, sir. Thank

you very much for your good offices.

I mentioned this briefly in conversation with the Attorney-General.

I find it offensive, as a legislator, to have that kind of a

section in

there.

Section 14 (

f) refers to the power of the cabinet to prescribe

conduct or activity for the purposes of

section 5 (i). It should not be

left to the cabinet.

If the government is of the view that there is something that has

fallen outside of this act, then the government should bring in an

amendment in due course and have it properly aired and debated in

public. This situation here allows the cabinet, in secrecy, to decide

what conduct or activity should be prescribed under

section 5, which

may or may not require the director to "remove or require the removal

of, by erasure or otherwise," that portion. That could be anything, as

I say, and I urge the Attorney-General to accept the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: On the amendment, I have to say that when you

brought it to my attention originally, what you were objecting to, if I

can call it the so-called omnibus regulatory provision.... Your

comments had some merit. Since then, we've had introduced into

parliament Bill whatever-it-is,

an act to amend the Criminal Code of

Canada, the obscenity sections, and there are new categories of

prohibited visual material that are set out in that bill. If those

provisions

[ Page

8703 ]

should be passed by parliament, and they may not be

totally in that form.... They include other forms of conduct that would

have to be considered by the criminal law, and therefore would

certainly have to be considered by our director of motion picture

classifications. How is she, then, to deal with matters that are not

enumerated in

section 5(3) already? The only way she could do so would

be under the omnibus provision, whereby cabinet could make a regulation.

So I will certainly say in this House that as far as I am

concerned.... If I'm the minister advising the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to pass a regulation under that section,

the only regulation I would so advise would be to cover a provision of

the new Criminal Code changes, which as well withstood assaults under

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as undoubtedly there would be. I

think it's probably desirable to retain that omnibus provision for that

purpose, because you cannot keep amending your legislation to respond

to the Criminal Code. There should be parallel coverage. I think there

has to be. You can't have regulating and classifying films for one

purpose and allowing things that are prohibited by the criminal law.

Were it not for this bill, hon. member, I think I would have been

inclined to accept your amendment, but regrettably I must speak against

it.

MR. LAUK: That is regrettable, Madam Chairman. I don't like

the Attorney-General's convoluted argument and I don't accept it. I

don't think the Criminal Code amendments have any bearing on this

section. The issue clearly is, should this Legislature delegate all of

its authority in this area to the cabinet? That's what this

section

does — all of the Legislature's authority is being delegated to the

cabinet. It's most certainly going to be challenged under the charter,

and it's going to be challenged under traditional common law

constitutional

interpretation. It offends the rule of delegata potestas

non potest delegari, which is on the Attorney-General's lips every day.

And the classifier is to operate under this statute. The classifier

should have no interest other than in using her judgment, on a broad

scale, of what the laws of Canada should be. It's much more precise

than that. I know full well that the Attorney-General does not expect

that statute to pass in Ottawa, particularly in its present form.

[4:30]

It's very offensive to this chamber, no matter how responsible the

Attorney-General of the day, to suggest that this House delegate all of

its authority to him and to cabinet. I'm really disappointed that the

Attorney-General has not seen fit to accept the amendment. And to say

that we shouldn't leave ourselves open to amendments to the Criminal

Code — as if they're made every day! In the obscenity sections there

have been, I think, two amendments in 20 years or something. They're

not made every day and it's nonsense to suggest it as a reason for us

to hoist over all of our authority to decide on these issues.

MR. HOWARD: Awesome powers.

MR. LAUK: Absolutely awesome, sweeping, jack-boot powers that this Attorney-General wishes to take away from the Legislature.

MS. BROWN: I would have thought, Madam Chairperson, that in a matter

as sensitive as this the cabinet wouldn't want to take that kind of responsibility,

quite frankly; that they would rather have the House make those kinds of decisions.

I'm wondering whether we're giving the Attorney-General enough time

to really think this thing through. Maybe we should move an adjournment or something

so that he could consult and check with the law books a little bit more clearly

— delegata delegari, or whatever these things are that lawyers do when they

get together.

What my colleague from Vancouver Centre says is true: that in fact

cabinet has the right to change regulations and amend and decide what

is and what is not obscene. Really, that's too much responsibility to

be placed on the shoulders of cabinet. That's the kind of decision the

House should share. I'm sure that when the Attorney-General thinks

about this more clearly he will agree with that. I know that the

director doesn't want to have that responsibility on her shoulders. She

certainly doesn't want to be in a position where she's accused of

setting the standards, of establishing just what are and are not

community standards. I'm sure she wants to rely on the collective

wisdom of the Legislature in making those kinds of decisions, and so

should the Attorney-General and his cabinet.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we have to be able to respond to this

additional tier under the Criminal Code if it should become law, and

for that purpose the power is there, but it would be a power that I

would think the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be very sparing to

use. It has been our approach to try to spell things out in the act as

much as we can and to have a....

MR. LAUK: What if the next Attorney-General is Doug Christie?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Madam Chairman, I am glad in any event

that they have acknowledged regardless that this government is going to

be re-elected, and that pleases me considerably.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, you can also ascend, you know. You

don't have to be removed. But that would be an announcement for another

place, like a small atoll in my riding at 5 a.m. with seagulls present

only.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know. Are you rising on a point of personal privilege?

I must say, though, that this power seems justified particularly in

light of the flux of the Criminal Code and the injection of a new tier.

But that is all I would ever recommend it be used for.

MR. MACDONALD: I think that power is absolutely egregious for

any government to ask that it.... By regulation they can proscribe

people seeing or reading something without that being spelled out.

I am just adding my voice to what has been said by my two

colleagues. It is an extraordinary power, and if this were taken before

any court it would be struck down. It is totally wide-open. By

regulation you can..."conduct or an activity that is prescribed

in a regulation." It could be anything. And when you get into this

business of censorship —

[ Page 8704 ]

whether you call it by licence or not, it is really censorship we

are talking about — you've got to be very careful and sparing in terms

of what you restrict. You could very easily be carried right back to

the Victorian age with heavy obscenity laws and far more vice and

violence and Jack the Rippers and prostitutes than we see today.

I am not a pro-censorship person anyway, and here you come into this

House and have such a wide-open power as that given to government. I am

not sure how that Charter of Rights is going to work, but if I were a

judge looking at this under the Charter of Rights, I would say no

government should be given that kind of power. It is just outrageous. I

think that

section should be stricken out. Goodness me, this thing goes

far enough as it is, does it not?

HON. MR. SMITH: It would be the unreasonable exercise of the

power that would be impugnable under the Charter, not the delegation of

it. If a regulation were to be passed by a

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that proscribed the activity of

whittling, a perfectly reasonable activity in many parts of the

province, then no doubt the forensic persuasions of the second member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would be sufficient before any court to

strike down such a regulation as being unreasonable under the Charter.

That's how it would operate. But the delegation section, in the absence

of an unreasonable regulation, doesn't violate the Charter.

MS. BROWN: I am at a loss to understand why the

Attorney-General would jeopardize quite a reasonable and rational piece

of legislation by being stubborn about this. Really, that's what we are

dealing with: stubbornness. It is not that the Attorney-General is

illogical. We are dealing with a very logical human being here who has

managed with a great deal of assistance and aid to put together a

pretty reasonable and rational piece of legislation. Rather than taking

the time to consult with the wise people who drafted the legislation

and look at the real merits of the amendment being moved by my

colleague from Vancouver Centre, with a view to admitting that a

mistake has been made, that in fact this particular

section does

contravene — as my other colleague from Vancouver Centre said — our

sense of what is censorship and what isn't.... Just accept the

amendment, which simply says delete it.

When there are regulations to be drafted and decisions made about

community standards, what is obscene and what is not obscene in this

province, this Legislature, this House, this body, will make that kind

of decision, not the Attorney-General and his colleagues in cabinet.

That's not an irrational request. That's not even unreasonable. So

why would he jeopardize a decent piece of legislation simply by being

stubborn on this issue? It doesn't make any sense at all. I would like

to suggest that the Attorney-General give this matter some more thought.

While he's thinking, I'll continue to speak — if he needs more time

to do some more thinking. Would the Attorney-General like some more

time to examine the matter further?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. I would suggest that we just move on from

that

section for a minute and go to other sections and come back to

this, because I may have a solution to it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We'll stand down

section 5 and proceed to

section 6.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on

section 8.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will read out the motion.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. The motion is as follows: To amend

section 8, in the proposed

section 8(l), by deleting everything after

"theatre" and substituting "unless he is licensed to do so by the

Director in respect of each location from which the business is carried

on."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: If I can speak to the purpose of the

amendment, this proposed amendment is required because it's necessary

that the director have the power to require a separate licence for each

theatre and also for each video outlet. That was not clear, it was

thought, from the previous draft.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I move the complementary amendment

that I mentioned vis-à-vis

section 5 to

section 14 by deleting

paragraph (

f) of

section 14, which states, "prescribing conduct or an

activity for the purposes of

section 5(3)(i)," following on my first

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 14 and the amendment stand down and then go back to

section 5, hon. member?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, stand down

section 14 and the amendment.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Just pause for a moment; I'm going to propose a change.

If I could, with leave of the committee, move to

section 14 for a

minute, which we stood down, I want to propose an amendment to 14,

which will deal with

section 5 as well, which may satisfy the House —

if I can go to 14.

[4:45]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would move an amendment to 14(f), adding

the following words to 14(f): "...proscribing conduct or an

activity for the purposes of

section 5(3)(i),

[ Page

8705 ]

in order to be consistent with the Criminal Code." I have the

proposed amendment here, which I'll initial. While the members are

looking at it, I'll speak to it for a minute and explain its purport.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I took it that the

Attorney-General was saying I would make this amendment. My amendment

is still on the floor. That amendment is not acceptable to us, to this

extent. We appreciate that the Attorney-General will go that far, and

barring him not going as far as we want him to go, we're glad that he

has proposed that. But we'd like to vote on our amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment to

section 14.

MR. LAUK: Can we go back to

section 5 and vote on the amendment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I think the member

is absolutely correct. I believe we should take them in order and vote

on the amendment to

section 5 first.

Amendment to

section 5 negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

Macdonald

Cocke

Howard

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

NAYS — 20

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Rogers

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Parks

Section 5 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment to

section 14 from the Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK: No, no. On a point of order, I have moved a motion

to amend paragraph (

f) by deleting it; that should be dealt with before

any other amendments.

Amendment negatived on division.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would move the amendment under

section 14(

f) standing under my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment for

section 14 is by adding, in

section 14(f), the words: "in order to be consistent with the Criminal

Code of Canada." These words are after the reference to

section 5(3)(i).

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. SMITH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted; the bill must be

considered reported at a further date. Order, please, hon. members. One

moment. Because leave was not granted, we must go back to the preceding

motion. The preceding motion, of course, would be: when shall the bill

be read a third time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 70: minister's office, $186,423.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a few remarks to open my estimates.

I'll make them as brief as possible, and then I'm sure that some of the

members opposite will want to ask some questions.

First of all, just a few remarks about Expo 86, without any question

the largest and most exciting project ever undertaken in this province.

I do not want to take the time of the committee to recite statistics

that are well known to everyone, but suffice it to say that Expo has

proven to be a great success with the people of British Columbia and,

indeed, Canada and the rest of the world. At the moment, we have some

16.8 million visits paid for and in the bank, and the projected number

of visits now exceeds 17.5 million. In my own personal opinion, we

shall reach the 20 million mark before the fair closes on October 13.

The benefits to the economy of British Columbia cannot be

overemphasized. A number that seems to be left out when people are

quoting statistics is the fact that Expo 86 will generate some $3.5

billion to $4 billion in economic activity in this province alone. In

fact, it will generate over $600 million in taxes alone in this

province, revenue that would not be here for the province if it were

not for Expo — $600 million in taxes.

It is putting British Columbia on the map as no other event could possibly have done. The profile and recognition

[ Page 8706 ]

that we are getting world-wide would not have been possible without

an event such as Expo. On the opening-day ceremonies alone, which were

of course attended by the royal couple.... Over one billion viewers

worldwide saw that opening on television alone. We are on virtually

every magazine cover, or in magazines, newspapers and radios throughout

the world. So in international recognition alone, Expo will pay

dividends for many years to come.

California has been a particularly key market to us. Our marketing

success there, I think by now, is well-known. More than 30 percent of

all Expo inquiries are coming from the state of California, and we are

pleased to see that. We will undoubtedly end up with in excess of 2.5

million visits from the state of California alone. Already we have over

150 buses northbound from the U.S. per day in the month of May, which

is about four times the normal average. Vehicle and passenger traffic

is up 50 percent from the United States over a normal m