1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7177

Game Farm Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7178

Private Members' Statements

Freedom of speech of visiting students in Canada. Mr. Perry –– 7178

Mr. R. Fraser

Tourism in the Mackenzie riding. Mr. Long –– 7180

Ms. Pullinger

Land use planning. Ms. Edwards –– 7182

Hon. Mr. Dirks

International Woodworkers of America. Mr. Bruce –– 7184

Mr. Gabelmann

Ministerial Statement

National Transportation Week. Hon. Mr. Vant –– 7186

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7186

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ministerial Statement

Supreme Court decision on electoral redistribution deadline.

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7194

Mr. Rose

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7195

Mr. Blencoe –– 7196

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7196

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 21). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7196

Mr. Blencoe –– 7196

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7197

FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1989

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, 1,527 days from today we will

open the 1993 Canada Summer Games in Kamloops. In our precincts are a

number of the members of the committee who worked very hard under the

leadership of Mr. Vic Poleschuk to secure those games on behalf of the

community of Kamloops. In introducing them and in asking the House to

welcome them to our area, I want to say that they congratulate the

outstanding efforts that were made by the four other committees and the

four other communities around British Columbia which also sought to

have these games and to represent Canada in British Columbia in 1993.

They would ask me to invite all British Columbians from all communities

to come to Kamloops in 1993 to celebrate this great event. Would you

join me in making them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, as a representative from what can

fairly be described as the also-ran community — I believe that the

community of Nanaimo was clearly second in that particular race for the

games — I would like to join the member opposite in congratulating the

citizens of Kamloops on the fine job they did in making representation

and being awarded the games. I want to say that the people of my

community certainly congratulate you and encourage you in that. All of

us in B.C., I am sure, hope that the games are a marvellous success,

and we'll certainly do our part to help make that happen.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are a

couple from the city of Penticton, Dr. Mac Barry and his wife Joan,

along with their daughter Barbara, who works and lives here in

Victoria. Dr. Barry has been active in the medical profession in our

city for many years, and he has also donated many hours of his time to

assist crippled and burned children. Dr. Barry is the past potentate of

the Shriner club of British Columbia. Would the members please welcome

them.

MR. PERRY: It's usually typical to introduce visitors from

one's own constituency, but I have the very unusual honour and

privilege this morning to introduce a neighbour from my flat in

Victoria. Stacey Shaben is a student at the University of Victoria

who's here. I'd like to welcome her to the House.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to make a correction to the statement that

the member for Nanaimo made that they were in second place. That was not correct.

I think the Abbotsford-Matsqui area was actually in first place; then they dropped

to second. But we're good losers, and we want to congratulate Kamloops on

the bid. We know that they will put on a very good Summer Games, and certainly

we wish them well. I want to also say on behalf of my community: they did put

in a good effort, and they made a good proposal. Only one could win; Kamloops

was chosen. So be it.

I would also like to introduce some people from my constituency on

behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and

myself. We have with us today graduating students from the Abbotsford

Christian Academy. They are ten grade 12 students accompanied by their

teacher Mr. Blair McHenry. This trip is a graduation present to the

students. After visiting the House, they will be going to the Butchart

Gardens and the provincial museum and staying overnight at the Olde

England Inn. They will be leaving Saturday afternoon for home for the

lovely area of Central Fraser Valley. Would this House please make them

welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: As I'm sure most members in the House are

aware, the Municipal Officers' Association held their fiftieth

conference in Victoria this past week. Visiting from the great

constituency of Okanagan South, we have the administrator of the

Regional District of Central Okanagan, Mr. Al Harrison, and his wife

Dolores. On behalf of my colleague the first member for Okanagan South

(Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask that you make them all welcome.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to

welcome two visitors to the city, Dr. and Mrs. McLeish, from the

beautiful and stately city of Melbourne, Australia, who are visiting

Canada for the first time. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and myself, I too want

to congratulate the city of Kamloops on its very successful bid to host

the 1993 Canada Summer Games on behalf of the province of British

Columbia. As with so many things, there can really be only one winner.

It is with a certain amount of envy, I suppose, that our municipality

notes this, but at the same time, we want to congratulate you and

assure you of our support in your efforts. We know and recognize that

you have drawn on a tremendous amount of volunteer enthusiasm in your

community. You were able to gather some 7,000 residents, I was told, in

the arena there one evening in support of the bid, and 4,000 last

night. Certainly that kind of participation by the citizens of Kamloops

bodes well for an absolutely outstanding, successful 1993 Summer Games.

Congratulations.

Introduction of Bills

AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Agriculture Protection Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The purpose of this bill is to discourage people from using the courts to stop

[ Page 7178 ]

activities that create noise and smell when farmers

are operating their farms in the agricultural land reserve, carrying

out their operations in a reasonable manner or in accordance with

accepted farming practices and complying with all enactments and

permits relating to the operation causing the nuisance.

The legislation will not allow a person to obtain injunctive relief,

either interim or permanent, to stop the farm operation or to obtain an

award for damages against the farmer if the farmer is eligible for the

benefit of this legislation. It is important to note that the bill does

not safeguard the farmer in the event of negligence or unreasonable use

of his land. The proposed legislation will not alter the bylaw-making

powers of local government.

[10:15]

The rationale for the legislation is that intensive farming requires

very significant investments of capital: an average, I should probably

note, of about half a million dollars. Current capital investment in

agriculture in this province is approximately $6.5 billion The value of

production by the farm sector exceeds $1.1 billion, and it's important

to recognize the impact of agriculture on the economy of B.C. It makes

sound economic sense for the province to protect the farm sector and to

facilitate its continued growth and development.

It is expected that this legislation will encourage good farm

practice throughout the province, provide confidence and stability in

the farm sector and enable growth, development and modernization of the

industry. For this legislation to provide a benefit to farmers, they

must comply with all laws relevant to farm operations. This ensures

that public interests and individual rights are protected. On balance,

private individuals may have to withstand some nuisance.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

GAME FARM ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Game Farm Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The purpose of this legislation is to

develop a framework that enables the ministry to license game farmers

and to administer game farming, ensuring that there is promotion of a

developing industry; recognition of the interests of consumers; control

over game farms through recordkeeping requirements; protection of

environmentally sensitive regions of the province by providing the

ability to exclude farming from them; and protection of wild stock from

adverse effects of game farming by: (1) controlling disease;

(2) providing that the escapement of farm game is minimized and animal

control programs are put in place; and (3) restricting game species to

particular regions of the province.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of

Environment will sign a protocol agreement to recognize the ongoing

consultation and cooperation between our ministries, to address the

protection of environmentally sensitive areas of the province from the

potential impact of game farming, and the protection of wildlife,

especially from disease. When regulations are developed to protect the

environment and wild stock, this will be done in consultation with the

Ministry of Environment. Non-endemic species — bison and fallow deer,

and reindeer in the Peace River region — will be farmed.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries currently administers game

farming, although permitting authority under the Wildlife Act is

delegated by the Ministry of Environment. The process is complex and

implies that game farming is still controlled by the Ministry of

Environment. The permit system does not address industry promotion, the

development of good animal husbandry and protection and education of

the consuming public. The licensing framework and the amendments to

other agriculture legislation are needed to address these concerns.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will allow the minister to

license all game farmers, promote good animal husbandry practices among

game farmers, encourage growth of the industry, prevent harm to wild

stocks and minimize any environmental impacts.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Private Members' Statements

FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF

VISITING STUDENTS IN CANADA

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, something very momentous is happening

in China. Little do we know exactly what it portends, but the entire

world's attention is riveted on Tiananmen Square.

This is hardly the first time China has so captivated our attention.

Centuries ago Europeans looked to the east not only for exotic silks

and spices but for wisdom and scientific prowess. It was Napoleon who

predicted: "There lies a sleeping giant. When it wakes, it will shake

the world."

Often before in this century, China has stirred the western

imagination and conscience. Few countries have fought so hard for the

initial steps of democratization as did China in the first years of

this century, which led to the presidency of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Few

people suffered so much during World War II as did the Chinese during

the Japanese occupation, and seldom in human history has any event so

shaken the world as did the revolution of 1949.

Canada, since its first years of nationhood, has enjoyed a special

relationship with China. At first the flow of people and ideas was

mostly one-way. From China came the labourers who did most of the

back-breaking work to build the Canadian Pacific

[ Page

7179 ]

Railway in B.C. — so too some of our first

merchants and market gardeners. Later we Canadians began a

distinguished tradition of missionary and medical service in China,

through the work of people like nurse Jean McEwen, Dr. Norman Bethune

and Dr. Robert McClure.

After the revolution we persistently withstood strong United States

pressure to boycott the Chinese, and we prospered by our trading

relationship. In 1970 we helped lead the movement at the United Nations

to finally accord to China the international recognition and status it

so clearly deserved.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly surprising that Canadians are

excited and encouraged by recent developments in China which seem to

herald the development of a more democratic society whose ordinary

citizens will enjoy more of the freedoms and privileges we usually take

for granted. To see students and working people debating the great

issues of the day in public has stirred a profound chord of sympathy,

or rather empathy, among millions of Canadians. I think empathy is

really the right word, because who among us has not imagined himself or

herself along with the students and the ordinary people in that great

square which symbolizes the modern Chinese nation? What politician has

not pondered how he or she would deal with the enormous challenges

facing the Chinese government as it grapples with the problems of one

billion people, and what Canadian does not wish for the Chinese people

that same ultimate goal for which we all strive according to our own

lights: the full development of the potential of each human being and

the realization of a society which facilitates this for all its members?

In this century China has emerged from grinding poverty, illiteracy,

epidemic disease and domination from abroad. Now we acknowledge China

not only as the inheritor of a proud and ancient culture but often as a

world leader in health, education and, increasingly, science and

technology.

Far be it from us to prescribe to any nation, great or small, how to

develop its society or govern its citizens. But it is natural and

totally appropriate that we Canadians should wish for the Chinese

people, if they so wish them for themselves, those same rights to

freedom of speech, association, religion and security of person that

our society has recognized for hundreds of years, and which the world

as a whole accepted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the

founding of the United Nations.

Those rights were not easily won by our society Indeed, we continue

to fight for them, and we maintain them only by their constant exercise.

The greatest achievements of the human spirit, be it the age-old struggle for

self-expression of the Jews, celebrated each year at Passover; be it the slave

rebellions in ancient Rome or in nineteenth-century America; be it the Enlightenment

in Europe; be it the revolutions in France, the United States, Mexico, South

America or Russia: all have been inspired and ultimately won by the synthesis

of courageous and creative leadership with the genuine and legitimate aspirations

of ordinary people.

We have seen that democratization seems to be an inevitable and

insuppressible tendency of human society. We have seen it recently in

the Philippines, in the Soviet Union and Poland, and now in China. In

all of these movements students and scholars have played an important

part. I think that is why Canadians are so enthralled by the

developments in Beijing and elsewhere in China. No wonder that Chinese

students studying in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, have expressed

their solidarity with compatriots and colleagues back home.

Some may feel that such demonstrations are improper for visitors in

our country. Some may see this as interference in the affairs of a

sovereign nation, be it our own or the People's Republic of China. I

think that is preposterous. I well remember my own ceremony of Canadian

citizenship on January 9, 1970. Justice Norman Oreck told me and all

the other new Canadians in his courtroom that day that we should

preserve what was best of our cultures and contribute our ideas and our

criticisms, as well as our praise, to our new country. Justice Oreck

was speaking for Canada that day. I think he and the vast majority of

Canadians feel the same way about visitors to our country. We have as

much to learn from them as they from us, and we prosper as a society

when they exercise freedom of speech, just as we would do ourselves.

I hope we will never see the day when visitors to Canada are not

welcome to state their views publicly, so long as they respect the

norms of free speech accepted by Canadians. That is why so many

Canadians are offended at the remarks by one member of this assembly

suggesting or implying that Chinese students resident in Canada should

not express their views on one of the greatest issues of our time. That

is why I think we should expect an apology from the member on behalf of

this House. Let me attempt to set the record straight: this House

stands for the fullest possible freedom of expression, which is the

absolute foundation of our democracy.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted that I have a

chance to respond. Normally backbenchers don't get this chance, but

today I do, and I'm very grateful.

I was interested in listening to what the member said. In fact, I

suspect that most of us would agree with almost everything he said.

There's no question that sovereignty is important to us all, that China

is a great country and that the contribution the Chinese have made to

Canada is significant; indeed, as significant as any of those who have

come to Canada. We welcome them all, including the students.

But that is not the issue about which I spoke. What I said is simply

that as a democratic nation, we respect the rights of other countries

to choose their system of government, as we expect them to respect

ours. That means that as Canadians we expect others to stay out of our

internal affairs, as we would stay out of theirs. We as Canadians, if

we wish to get

[ Page 7180 ]

involved, do so to the possible embarrassment of our government.

I am certain that as Canadians, if we had learned during the Quebec

crisis that disenchanted Canadians were living elsewhere and being

supported by another country, we would expect that country to have

adopted the views of those disenchanted Canadians. So it's very

important for all of us, wherever we go, to accept the dictates of

common courtesy, to accept the privileges and rights of a country that

we get when we go there, but not to become involved in a political

discussion from here in some other land that might be your homeland.

If you don't understand that, it simply means this: Canada should

not be seen to be, and should not be, a sanctuary for those who would

get involved in politics in their own country. If they wish to do that,

that's where they should go.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Of course you don't understand, Mr. Member; I don't expect you to.

Obviously freedom of speech is important, and I endorse that. What

we talked about was the activities of those who become involved in

activities in their own country from here. None of us appreciates that,

none of us expects it, and I would be amazed if every one of you didn't

agree with that. Visitors are welcome any time, freedom of speech on

any subject in this country other than....

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: That's what I said: visitors, guests,

businessmen and students are welcome in this country; expressions of

opinion, of course, are welcome. We have done that consistently for

years, and I suspect we will continue to do that.

[10:30]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, at a reception at the university last

night I discussed this matter with a number of colleagues. I expressed

the view that I didn't think that the member opposite had really

understood what he was saying, but that I didn't understand why he had

repeated it outside the House several times. My colleague suggested

that maybe even after repeating it several times he didn't understand

what he was saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: He speaks for the government today, too. They chose him.

MR. PERRY: I am concerned that he speaks for the government,

since he has given the official response to my statement. I think that

is totally unacceptable.

I want to reiterate on behalf of the members on this side of the

House in the New Democratic Party that we welcome the participation of

visitors to this country in our democracy, be they refugees, students

or any other visitor — visiting speakers. We have a long tradition of

that. It comes from our bicultural founding heritage from Britain and

France. It's well established in the traditions of both of those

countries. I call upon the government, upon those cabinet members

sitting opposite, to ensure that the government issues a statement

today to undo the damage which has been done by the statements of its

member.

TOURISM IN THE MACKENZIE RIDING

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on tourism in the Mackenzie riding.

Interjections.

MR. LONG: I'm being heckled by my own people.

I'd like to tell some of the people in the galleries and in this

House that if they haven't been to the Mackenzie riding, which starts

at Port Mellon — there's a ferry from Horseshoe Bay over to the Gibsons

area, Port Mellon, Sechelt, on up to Pender Harbour, Powell River and

then north as far as Bella Coola and Bella Bella — then they're really

missing something. The whole area of Mackenzie is probably one of the

most pristine places in all of British Columbia. Most of the wilderness

is untouched today. I think that when the tourists come to our area,

that is what they see.

In Gibsons we also have the production of "The Beachcombers," which

is shown around the world now. It has shown the beaches, the clean

water and the fishing that goes on up that way — and of course on to

Sechelt, which basically has the same philosophy: that fishing is a

major thing and the beauty of the area.

MR. WILLIAMS: Woodfibre, Port Mellon.

MR. LONG: Absolutely. Woodfibre and Port Mellon are very

important, because they supply the jobs for the people to live there.

Maybe the member from Vancouver doesn't realize people need jobs. I'll

get to the people of Vancouver in a moment. It's time he understood

that people need jobs.

We'll get on to Pender Harbour where the fishing is fantastic. The

member probably fishes at Pender Harbour, but he doesn't want to let

on. He takes them back to Vancouver and eats them.

MR. BRUCE: How big are the fish?

MR. LONG: They're so big the negatives of the picture weigh two and a half pounds.

We have some of the best lakes, some of the best water and some of

the best fishing. By far some of the greatest people in all of British

Columbia live in the Mackenzie riding. It's all the way up the coast;

it's such a big riding.

I've got to jump from place to place; I'm on a time restriction here.

We get into Powell River, we get into Lund — a small community at

the end of the highway — and then of course, on up to and including

Texada Island. On the way up the coast at Lund, the highway ends.

[ Page 7181 ]

From there to Bella Coola it's wide open wilderness; the ferries go

up from Vancouver Island through to Bella Coola, Bella Bella and that

area. It's just absolutely beautiful country.

We have such clean water, we have such clean beaches, we have such

clean air, that we want to keep them that way. How are we going to keep

them that way? We're going to keep them that way by putting in a

pipeline through to Vancouver Island to make this one of the cleanest

places in British Columbia. We're going to stop the burning of the

heavy oils and the woods and the things that pollute our air, to keep

those beaches beautiful for those people in the lower mainland who want

to come to our riding to catch our fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the pipeline?

MR. LONG: This is the pipeline — the Vancouver Island

pipeline. It's necessary. These are the people that want to come up and

enjoy it, and we need your help. I'm glad to see that the minister and

the mayors have agreed to put in a commissioner with unbiased opinions

to come along and tell them which is the best way and to work with

them. I really commend what the minister has done with the mayors. I

think it's great. I think they'll come to a solution, and they'll say:

"This is the best for the province. This is the best for the people of

the riding. This is the best for the people of Vancouver in the long

run."

In closing, I want....

Interjection.

MR. LONG: That's where we have a problem. The NDP will not

stand up on Vancouver Island and say: "We endorse this project. We want

clean air. We want clean water. We want to bring people to Vancouver

Island. We want to bring them to the Sunshine Coast." We need the

support of the opposition, and we don't seem to be getting it. I'm

looking forward to this group in this corner of the House coming

forward in great strides and helping us make this a reality.

MS. PULLINGER: As my party's tourism spokesperson, I'm

delighted to hear the member for Mackenzie talking about tourism and

the advantages of it I also note that he's concerned that the people

who haven't come to Mackenzie are really missing something. There's no

doubt that that's true.

However, I would like to point out that when we were government, we

had the ferry that runs from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert stop at Ocean

Falls. With some very small ferries and some short roads, we could have

had two circle tours from the north and the south part that would have

benefited the whole area and allowed a lot of people to come and see

that region. However, this government chose to discontinue that, to cut

off this service....

MR. WILLIAMS: They killed Ocean Falls.

MS. PULLINGER: That's quite right. A lot of people can't get

in there to see it. That's too bad. By now we would have had 15 years

of tourism built up in that area. Instead, we've seen it go downhill.

There's no question that tourism is important. It's the second-largest

industry in the province. It's growing, and it can in many ways be very

positive for British Columbia.

It's an excellent tool for regional development, for instance. If

this government had followed through what we started, we could have

developed that whole central coast region. It's relatively

pollution-free — a sustainable, renewable kind of industry. It also

tends to be community-based. Places like Chemainus and Port Alberni are

examples of what communities can do, how they can gather around

tourism. It draws the community together. It puts the focus on local

history, local culture and the natural resources of the area, and can

therefore strengthen a community. It also tends to promote and

encourage small business, which, as we know, creates eight out of ten

new jobs. They tend to be locally owned and operated and keep money in

the area. Those are all very positive aspects of tourism, and it is an

excellent and growing industry.

I'd like to just caution that we ought not to get overenthusiastic

or overzealous about it and ignore the very real problems that can

occur in the tourism industry. It is not, I would offer, a replacement

or a substitute for the economy that we have. It is, in fact, something

that should be added to our economy and integrated with it. It ought

not to replace our present industry, because of some of the problems

I've mentioned. Although there are many jobs in tourism, the vast

majority of them are minimum-wage, short-term, part-time jobs. It's

something this government needs to address. We need to look at what

that minimum wage is. Is it a livable wage? We need to address those

issues. Tourism can indeed be the industry of the future, but we had

best look to see carefully what that future will be.

The industry deserves support. It needs integrated, long-range,

carefully considered support. What we're seeing is fragmentation of the

ministry, which makes it difficult for small businesses to get the

support they need. It needs carefully considered support. I'm not sure

that combining advertising with McDonald's and our parks is carefully

considered support. Those two images work against each other.

Wilderness tourism is one of the major attractions of British

Columbia. We need to support it by encouraging a clean environment. We

know that this government has an abysmal record in terms of caring for

our environment in any meaningful way.

Certainly everyone on Vancouver Island would agree that we need a

pipeline. We would support any alternative cleaner fuel. But we need to

do more than that. The hon. member mentioned fishing. But who wants to

fish for fish that glow? We need clean air. We need regulations and

monitoring that mean something. Things like whale-watching are not

great in an

[ Page 7182 ]

oil slick. You people need to spend some time to clean this up.

We want some leadership. We're not getting it from that side of the

House. The leadership is coming from this side of the House in our

sustainable development package. You folks say you're ready to follow.

You just need to be advised what to do. We're ready to lead. Just watch!

MR. LONG: The hon. second member for Nanaimo brings some points forward that I'd like to make some comments on.

First, she mentioned the ferry to Ocean Falls. I don't know if this

lady has been in Ocean Falls lately, but there are very few people, and

the economics would be incredible. We also have the ferry that runs all

the way up to Prince Rupert and ferries a lot of people back and forth.

In the future there's another private concern that will be taking

people into the wilderness area.

The thing that really puzzles me is the comment from the member for

Vancouver East. At one moment the member for Nanaimo is saying we need

the jobs and that we shut down Ocean Falls; but the member for

Vancouver East, who just made a statement about the pulp mills on the

lower coast, doesn't want them. He makes comments about that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There's another point. She says "relatively pollution-free." My good

Lord, there's why we need our pipeline. Relatively is not good enough —

we've got to have pollution-free.

Going back to her comments, I want to tell you what it's about here.

Back when the NDP were in power, they had a Highways minister called

Graham Lea. Now this is the way they look at tourism. He told the

people in the U.S. to go home because they were making potholes in our

roads.

MR. BRUCE: What was his name?

MR. LONG: Graham Lea, the minister.

The member asked what tourism will do for us. I think it's very

simple: prosperity and jobs. Those are the things that we need. The

last thing I want to hear from the members in this corner of the House

is the statement that the member for Nanaimo made when she said: "You

people must clean this up." We're asking for your help. Stand up and

testify. Let us know. Help us with the pipeline. Let's get our

environment cleaned up. We're looking to you for some help. We will do

the rest.

[10:45]

LAND USE PLANNING

MS. EDWARDS: I've chosen a topic today that of course is

everybody's positive topic. Everybody says that land use planning is a

good thing. Everybody says that if we're going to have multiple use we

must have land use planning. Everybody says there is a need to plan.

Everybody says we must look ahead.

We've been talking about something very concrete coming out of that

in my area for the last 20 years. We've been talking about having a

provincial land use plan. I don't know why we've been talking about it

in my area for that long — perhaps longer than in some other areas. It

may be because of the extreme resource conflict that happens in the

Kootenays. It may be because in our area we have a larger percentage of

Crown land being used for various economic initiatives. But for

whatever reasons, we've been talking about it. We've been demanding it.

We've been saying this province needs a land use plan. We've had all

the examples indicating that that's the case. The government has said

they support multiple use and land use planning. The government says

that's a very good idea. But do we have a provincial land use plan? No,

we don't, and the kinds of problems this situation creates are fairly

extreme.

We do not have the integration of planning that we need. One

ministry really predominates in land use planning in this province, and

because of the way things are going, that may not be appropriate. It

isn't appropriate in any case, Mr. Speaker. We have situations that

demonstrate what's going on. For example, I've spoken to three people

in the last three days who, by coincidence, mentioned that wildlife

biologists don't manage wildlife in this province; what they manage is

what's left of the wildlife that can survive on the habitat managed by

somebody else.

HON. MR. PARKER: There are more pheasant and more deer in your area now than ever before.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the Minister of Forests wants to say

something about the magnificent management of what's left of the

wildlife after the Ministry of Forests has set up what it wants to do

with the habitat. But they have the priority....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty

hearing the member speak. Either refrain from these peripheral

conversations or absent yourself, please.

MS. EDWARDS: Another example of what goes on is what happened

with the tree-farm licence proposals that the minister took out to the

rest of the province. When the minister went to hear what was happening

about tree-farm licences and to talk about what the minister is most

interested in, which is management for lumber extraction and fibre use,

he found that people, as he put it, were not talking on the issue,

because when you talk about long-term tenure you should, he said, be

talking about the trees as we extract them for logging. He said other

things were considered, but he was amazed that everybody else in the

province seemed to bring up other areas of management that had not been

considered when he put forward his proposal on tree-farm licences.

What it indicates is that the Ministry of Forests is right upfront doing the management and people from

[ Page 7183 ]

the other ministries are cast in the role of

begging for attention under the few rules we have for land use

management. This is largely because we do not have an adequate

inventory. If, in fact, this government were serious about setting up a

land use plan, they would probably do what anybody else does when they

begin planning. They say: "What do we have to plan?" Then they get an

inventory and take a look at what's there. We don't have inventories of

even the trees, let alone the forests, that are adequate to do the kind

of planning people are demanding.

HON. MR. PARKER: Wrong.

MS. EDWARDS: We don't have adequate inventory of the fish or

the wildlife. We have some kind of wilderness inventory that's been

done by community groups. We don't even have the standards by which we

can determine what our range is; a study that was done for range

inventory has never been implemented. In parks and agriculture we have

some inventory, but we also have arguments consistently and continually

about the boundaries on that.

The comments I make today were initiated in part by a letter written

by a constituent, a member of the East Kootenay Hunters' Association,

to the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He

says to the minister: "The item, however, that was conspicuously absent

from your budget outline was provision for a proper inventory to be

done on...." Obviously a hunters' association wants an inventory on

wildlife, especially in a high-user area like the East Kootenay.

"Annually, regional biologists are summoned to set out hunting seasons

with inadequate information about wildlife numbers due to budget

shortfalls. This practice ultimately leads to ultraconservative

management strategies and the potential for severe losses on ranges

where overgrazing may be occurring." Then he points out that even the

smallest businesses do not operate without an accurate inventory, and

that when one considers the revenue generated by our wildlife, we need

the inventory to be able to manage it for the people of the province.

That's only one example; in fact, the calls for a reasonable

inventory come regularly — particular activities that we try to do.

They came, as I said, when we tried to discuss tree-farm licences and

the kind of tenure the forest industry should have. In our past

experience we have found that miscalculation of our inventory has not

allowed us to do as effective sustained yield planning as we wanted to

do; we discovered that the trees weren't there which the figures had

said were there.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm rather amused by all this, and I'd like

to use the phrase that was brought into this House by the opposition

House Leader: this is the greatest display of mugwumpery I have ever

seen.

Basically I hear the member for Kootenay saying that we need a

proper inventory; we need something in order for land planning to take

place. Well, in rising today she said that she's basing a lot of her

statements on a letter that she received. I wonder if it is really the

letter, or if she is simply feeling a little flush after being the

chairman of a regional convention held in my constituency over the

weekend where 67 delegates voted and adopted land use.

Here we have the member saying we need a proper inventory first of

all. What was the land use that they adopted? I guess it caused a bit

of a stir back there, because according to the headlines of the

Castlegar News on Wednesday, May 31, the NDP argued about forests. What

did they adopt? They adopted a resolution that said they would adopt

this as the basis. This was the resolution that they were going to send

in — not to the party convention, not where it could be debated openly,

but really where it would go to the committee. This was on an emergency

basis.

This is the British Columbia endangered wilderness map, where they set out 12 percent of this province for parks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is inappropriate for any member of

the House to display any item in the House. Sorry, those are the rules, and

they haven't been enforced recently. But while I'm in the Chair, I'll

try to enforce them.

HON. MR. DIRKS: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

quote some of the misstatements in this that they are now using as

their policy — like saying that at this time, B.C. does not have a park

system which guarantees that any area will be preserved for future

generations. Where have they been when this government said a park is a

park?

Another nice little misstatement in here: "...nightmare landscapes of

clearcuts are expanding into community watersheds, scenic corridors for major

tourist traffic, and even into our parks. In the interior of British Columbia

there's a clearcut 55 miles long by 55 miles wide." Balderdash! Shame!

This is what they're adopting. This is what they're going to adopt.

They don't even to want to adopt it in an open convention. They're going

to hide this behind their little party executive, and that's the way it's

going to come forward.

Now here's another little statement they make here, and I've been

trying to get verification of this from that very same committee. They

say: "Now some parks like Kokanee Glacier and the new South Moresby

national park are riddled throughout with areas open to industrial

use." Again I say balderdash. This is what you are adopting. This is

what you did it on in Creston last week. It's just full of false

statements, yet you need a proper inventory.

I would suggest that the way we do this is the way the government

has committed to do it. The task force that has been set up under Dr.

Strangway from UBC will recommend how we can get multiple use, and how

we can make use of our resources in a very orderly fashion. I'd like to

quote from another fellow who is well known in environmental circles,

Mike Halleran, in his address to the forest forum of the

[ Page 7184 ]

north Cariboo community In Quesnel. He says: "When

it comes to wilderness, the images are terribly distorted. I have saved

that subject for the last. There are those who seem to believe that,

except for designated parks and wilderness areas, all of B.C. will

eventually be clearcut. This is a gigantic hoax." That's what Mike

Halleran says.

That is precisely the stand that the people who drafted this map

would take and would have the population believe. That's precisely the

stand the NDP have adopted in this mini-convention that they had in my

constituency. There is only one way to do this, and that is to do it

rationally It is to take a good inventory of what we have. It is to sit

down with rational heads and look at all possible uses of our natural

resources.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely delightful for you

to be able to see here today how we in the Kootenays work together. All

it took was 67 voting members of the Kootenay group and 120-some more

working together to say that we would start discussing wilderness based

on the Valhalla wilderness map. Within a week we have the Minister of

State for Kootenay discussing wilderness based on the Valhalla

Wilderness Society map. Well, there seemed to be no indication from the

people in his riding that he had looked at it before, and they had

wanted him to.

I might say that there's more than one way to cook a turkey. We've

got the minister looking at the map now. If the minister had any

understanding of how our party works, he perhaps would have understood

where this resolution is going, how it's going to the people of British

Columbia right across the province and how it reflects the idea that we

need land use planning, we need to talk together and make a plan to

prevent the confrontations that are going on in British Columbia; and

in order to do that planning adequately, we need inventories.

I would agree with the minister that you can't wait for all the

inventories in order to do the planning but, for heaven's sake, let's

start on the planning and the inventory. I think it's time that this

government understood this. It's absolutely necessary, for any

participation by the ordinary citizens of British Columbia, to have

inventories, so that they know what they are talking about and what the

figures are, so they can go ahead. If the minister were concerned, they

would obviously have the absolutely accurate figures.

I commend the minister and I ask him to proceed on the basis of

getting some inventories done, so that the next time we can all talk on

the same basis again, based on the same maps and the same figures.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver East has approached the Chair and asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today is a visitor from Japan who,

I am sure, is fascinated by the antics in this chamber. His name is

Hiroshi Fugimoto, and accompanying him is a friend of his and my

father-in-law, Frank Babish. I would ask the House to make them both

welcome.

[11:00]

INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA

MR. BRUCE: Today I'd like to speak about one of the great

institutions in British Columbia, the International Woodworkers of

America. The IWA, as we all know, has been a major player in the

development of the economy in British Columbia, but it has also been a

major player in my community, the great constituency of

Cowichan-Malahat. One could say, if you were looking for a birthplace

of the IWA in British Columbia, you might come to the conclusion that

it was in Cowichan-Malahat.

The IWA has been a fighter for the rights of the lumberman and the

logger, a fighter for higher wages and improved safety concerns and the

like throughout the forestry industry. More recently, it has become a

very strong fighter in respect to environmental concerns and forestry

practices throughout this province. The IWA, as it has been throughout

the province and in my community as well, has been very much an

integral part and an integral player in the overall development of this

province.

The history of the IWA — not that I have a definitive study of

it.... As I understand it, it was created in 1937, after some

difficulties through a number of other mergers and partners and

differences with lumber-sector unions throughout North America. It

didn't come easily, the bringing about of the IWA as we know it today.

Back in 1936 there were attempts at unionization within the industry,

and goodness knows it was very necessary. In those times, union

organizers were run out of camps and people were not given the right to

unionize. As a result, there was no standard for wages or working

conditions. In the forestry sector, we've known for many years....

There have been some improvements to the safety and working conditions,

most of them attributable to the efforts of the IWA.

It was in May 1936 in the Lake Cowichan area that a strike was used

to try and enforce demands for a standard wage scale. They were looking

for union recognition and union agreements, and were led by two camps

from the Youbou area in my constituency. Although there was no union

recognition at the time, a pay increase of 50 cents a day was won. I

believe it was no small feat for the situation in 1936.

It was actually in 1940 that the IWA really started to find itself

trying to rebuild. It had come into a fair amount of trouble. There had

been an unsuccessful strike at Blubber Bay on Texada Island, and from

that point they started rebuilding in British Columbia, initiated

particularly in the communities of Chemainus and Lake Cowichan.

In 1946 they initiated the first provincewide strike, which lasted 37 days. I don't think that any of us are

[ Page 7185 ]

pleased with or look forward to strikes in any

community, because they cause hardships on the community as a whole and

on the membership of the union. But in those days there was a time and

a need, and certainly the IWA filled that need and looked after the

concerns and demands that people were working for. In that respect,

although they did not win their total settlement, they increased their

union membership from 10,000 to 27,000.

The IWA today — IWA-Canada, as it's known — has more than 50,000

members, as I understand it. And of course, the IWA has political

affiliations — it's well known, in respect to their executives and the

like — with the NDP. But I know full well that I wouldn't stand here

today as the elected representative, the MLA, for Cowichan-Malahat if I

had not had the support of many IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat. I

appreciate and respect that support, not only in my political life but

also in my business life. The union wages that have been won and paid

have gone a long way to allowing my family the opportunity to develop

and expand a small business, two little grocery stores that we have now.

You can't talk about the IWA unless you also talk about one of the

leading figures in the political world today in the province of British

Columbia, a chap called Jack Munro. Jack is an institution in his own

right, and a very colourful figure when one looks at the history of

this province.

He joined the IWA in 1959 and became a plant chairman in 1960. He

was president of his local in 1968. He then became the regional

vice-president — when we look at the IWA from a regional perspective,

B.C. being one region — and then regional president in 1973. Now, of

course, he is president of IWA-Canada, the International Woodworkers of

America having split a little bit and formed the Canadian side.

Jack, I think, has done yeoman service for this province in dealing

with the concerns within the forestry sector on behalf of his union

membership It's no easy task, when one looks at the demands that are

occurring within the workplace, the demands and the conflicts that a

union leader would have to be dealing with in regard to technological

change. The fact that there will be downsizing, through technological

change, is contrary, in many instances, to what a union is there to

protect: jobs. Many times, one has to take a larger and more global

view of those technological changes and make sure that, in fighting for

the moment, you don't lose sight of the bigger and broader picture of

jobs for the future.

It's not an easy task, I'm sure, if one is the president of a union

such as the IWA, to try and balance representing the concerns of one's

membership and looking after the future concerns of that membership.

MR. GABELMANN: I should say at the outset that I'm pleased at

the tone the member for Cowichan Malahat chose to adopt in discussing

the IWA. I'd like to talk to him about a few things that I think some

IWA members around this province would like to talk to him about. I'll

get to that in a minute.

Let me say first of all that the member — and I don't denigrate him

for this — stumbled a little bit with the history of the early years.

That is not a criticism of the member but a criticism of the way

British Columbia has chosen to ignore trade unions and trade unionism.

We have chosen to ignore them in our school system. There is no labour

studies program in our school system, yet I remember in grade 11 being

able to take a course where we studied the stock market. It seems to me

that if people growing up in this province had an opportunity to learn

about the noble struggles of working people and their organizations, we

would all be better off. It was a minor error, but we wouldn't then

make mistakes such as calling them the International Woodworkers of

America. As the member noted later in his comments, it is in fact

IWA-Canada, and IWA doesn't stand for anything anymore in the sense of

what those initials reflect. It is simply IWA-Canada. It is no longer

the International Woodworkers of America. The union has no affiliation

whatsoever with the American side.

The member, I suspect, is attempting to make a few comments so that

he can do a mail-out to his IWA constituents in the hope that he might

get re-elected in the next election. Fat chance, I should say, but

that's probably what it's about. I trust the member will include in his

mail-out the full 14 or 15 minutes of comments that are made, and make

sure that IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat understand that government

policy is reflected in one aspect of this discussion by a statement by

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) in respect of Tsolum Timber

Sales Ltd., which is a sawmill in the Courtenay area. The minister is

quoted as saying: "It's a non-union outfit and non-union jobs are just

as important as union jobs." I want the IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat

who are going to get this mail-out from this member to know that as far

as the government is concerned, non-union jobs in the forest sector are

just as important as union jobs. I'd like IWA members to think about

that.

I'd also like the member and his constituents to think about the

vicious kind of game that is being played in British Columbia by the

government and some of its supporters in attempting to create an

artificial and phony war between people who are concerned about the

environment and people who are concerned about their jobs. It's a phony

war in which the government is trying to enlist the support — futilely,

I might say — of working people in an attempt to create battles in

British Columbia over resource development, over logging, when in fact

it should be the government's initiative and its policy that there be

every effort made to bring those groups together in this province, so

that we can have policies and programs that protect both our

environment and our jobs in this province. Yet the government is more

concerned with creating wars between environmentalists and workers,

between native Indians and workers, and in whatever way it can,

creating warfare out there among our citizens. When the government

stops that kind of activity, it will understand that it

[ Page 7186 ]

has taken the first step toward trying to get

policies in this province that will enable us to resolve those resource

conflicts and get on with the job of ensuring that more jobs are

created in our forest and industrial sectors and more of our

environment is protected. When we do all this, we will find that the

greatest environmentalists in British Columbia are in fact working

people. Some of the greatest environmentalists I know are members of

the IWA clear cutting in northern Vancouver Island, in a very sensitive

way. We need to bring those people together, not try to divide them —

and that has clearly been the policy of the government over the years.

The issues go on, and I don't have time to talk about all of them, obviously, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to mail out to my

constituents a statement such as this, or, if I did, to have the

remarks edited. Certainly I would never do such a thing. But let it be

said that as far and as long as I am the member for Cowichan-Malahat,

not only will I look and work on behalf of my constituents as a whole,

I will look and work on behalf of members of the IWA and of other

unions and those who are not necessarily members of unions. I believe

in the future of the province of British Columbia, and I believe it

does require that all of us work together.

[11:15]

If you go back just a few years to 1983, when we had the enormous

demonstrations and Solidarity on the, grounds of the parliament

buildings, who was it that finally came together, that took the

leadership necessary to bring things together so that we would have

peace in the province at that time? It was Bill Bennett, the Premier of

this province, and Jack Munro, the leader of the IWA. And where was the

opposition at that time? Quiet and hiding. Were they interested in the

well-being of this province and its future? Were they interested in

what would happen to the economic well-being of this province, when

today we have a balanced budget because of the action that was taken?

Today we have money in the bank for those days in the future when we

may be in desperate times.

Jack Munro — God bless him! — stood up at that time. He stood up and

said: "Listen. This government has a plan. It may be a plan that those

of us on one side are not totally prepared to accept, but anarchy will

not reign. As the leader of the IWA, the organization that has the

strongest and the biggest play in the B.C. Federation of Labour here in

this province, I will go and deal with the Premier of this province, as

he is the Premier of the province, whether I agree with his policy or

not." And they worked out the Kelowna accord. Because of that

statesmanship by both those individuals, Jack Munro and Bill Bennett,

we were able to forge ahead in a new partnership in this province.

My learned and honourable colleague from North Island, there is a

partnership in this province; there is a partnership in the labour

movement, and with the government of British Columbia. One only needs

to look at the labour peace that has been achieved since 1986, in 1987

and 1988. One only has to look at the settlements achieved without

strike, without a loss of wages, without those men and women who are

the members of the union suffering any loss to themselves.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

HON. MR. VANT: Next week is a very significant one for my

Ministry of Transportation and Highways. June 4 to June 11 has been

declared National Transportation Week. It's very significant for

British Columbia because, with 7,500 kilometres of railway track, no

less than 42 coastal and inland ferry routes, no less than 375 airports

and water-landing areas, 2,500 bridges and well in excess of 45,000

kilometres of public roads throughout British Columbia, we certainly

depend on transportation to meet our economic, social and recreational

needs.

With the regional transportation plans nearing completion in each of

our eight economic development regions, my ministry staff will soon be

preparing an overall plan to give us all the freedom to move. I would

ask the House at this time to recognize National Transportation Week.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry that our transport critic is not in the

House. I thank the minister, though, for giving us advance notice of

the statement. I thought It might have been given at the opening of the

sitting. I'm fully aware that the minister is within his rights to give

it at any time, but unfortunately we lack the opportunity to have our

expert respond, and I have to pinch-hit for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is everybody?

MR. ROSE: They're preparing their speeches for later this day.

So I thank the minister. On behalf of this side of the House, I'd

like to join with him in recognizing the importance of transportation

in our province and throughout our country.

HON. MIL PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $249,374 (continued).

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture, as

you mentioned yesterday, certain parts of the agriculture industry are

doing well — and I will concede that point. But I think you glossed

over certain areas. There are at least five sectors in

[ Page 7187 ]

the industry that are experiencing some

difficulties, ranging from fairly difficult to extreme economic

difficulties. I think you will probably concede that the strawberry

producers are having some problems, the potato growers are having

difficulties and many vegetable growers are now in economic difficulty

and the grape producers, primarily in the Okanagan and the Similkameen,

have been decimated.

There's been a great deal of talk about the great compensation

package; in fact, the government has been rather proud of the

compensation package. But if you look for some of the vineyards in the

Okanagan and the Similkameen, they're not there. About two-thirds of

the vineyards have vanished in the last year.

There are a couple of things I'm rather concerned about. First of

all — this is a concern that I don't think has been adequately

addressed by the ministry — the funds now allocated merely enable most

of the growers to rip out their vineyards and close up their

businesses. That is hardly for the betterment of the agricultural

community. The Okanagan-Similkameen region is where unemployment has

ranged in past years from about 16 to 20 percent. It is an area that is

very hard hit economically.

High land costs and small farming units make the land viable only

for those intense specialty crops that generate high returns per acre.

If the minister will recall, some years ago this very ministry

encouraged those people to get into grapes. It was the path of the

future; that's where the future lay. They accepted the word of the

ministry and did get into grapes, so there were about 2,500 acres in

grapes in the Okanagan. At least two-thirds of them have gone.

There was a great deal made of the compensation package of $28 million, but I don't think it was enough, and I'll tell you why.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Let's examine it very closely. It's very easy for

you to laugh, but if you were a grape grower who was 40, 50 or 60 years

old, and you had no options, you might not laugh quite so much. I'm

rather surprised at the members.

These guys are not necessarily individuals of my persuasion. They

are worried about their livelihood, and I don't blame them at all. They

have nothing to fall back on. They can't fall back on UI or pension

plans. They were planning for the future, and that future's been cut

away. If we want to get a little bit biased about it, let's get biased.

There's been a minimum investment of $70 million in the vineyards.

That represents over 600 part-time and full-time workers out of the

central Okanagan and Boundary-Similkameen area; that's very important.

Over the long run, that represents $2.5 billion of economic activity.

Put $28 million against $2.5 billion, and that's why I say it isn't

adequate. This government, has not really supported its longtime

supporters in this industry.

So I'm asking the minister: what options, other than the

compensation package, which I think is inadequate, has been offered to

the grape growers? In other words, where do they go from here? Once

they've ripped their grapes out, what options have been offered by the

ministry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think we went through part of this debate

yesterday in doing the estimates. I guess the issue is the $28 million.

That negotiating process did in fact involve the grape growers

themselves, or their marketing board. The marketing board did agree

that the package would be acceptable. They have come to my office and

suggested ways that we could turn this around. I can tell you that we

are diligently working towards trying to get them readjusted into the

vinifera types, as I said yesterday.

Let me assure you, before I say too much else, that there's a lot of

agriculture that's not guaranteed. There's a lot of business in this

province that is not guaranteed. Should we not be careful about what we

say is a guaranteed future for somebody? There are risks to be taken. I

don't think anybody who goes into any business ventures out without

some risk. I believe that we have to understand that the GATT challenge

made against Ontario would have been the inroad to all grape-growing

regions, whether in Nova Scotia, Ontario or British Columbia.

I believe we were faced with a challenge — which we accepted and

negotiated in good faith with the federal government — to come up with

a package that was acceptable to the grape growers. I fully appreciate

and realize that some may choose not to go back into grapes, and I

understand that the audit process that says they don't get their

package until such time as the vines have been pulled has even created

a bit of hardship. But you have to understand that we have to be

responsible to the people for our treasury. I think that's important,

and that's why the audit process is going on.

I'd like to say to the hon. critic that we will do everything we can

in working with the grape growers to try to facilitate either their

getting into new varieties or seeing if there are any opportunities in

any other commodity. I think that's important to recognize. We are

working towards that.

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate that reply. If you examine it very

closely, first of all, the costs of replanting are around $10,000 an

acre. That's generally accepted within the industry. When they get

$8,000 an acre, then taking a chance with no guaranteed market to

replant at $10,000 an acre is pretty difficult for most of these

individuals. In fact, most of them would not take the chance on that. I

can understand that well.

Another area — and this is the fifth area at peril, which is

extremely important. I alluded to it very briefly yesterday. I'm going

to elaborate on it today. This is a sector which has been in deep

trouble — not this year, not last year, not the year before or the year

before that — but for well over a decade. This

[ Page 7188 ]

particular sector has been a critical sector in the

entire agricultural industry. This is the tree-fruit sector. In the

valleys of the Okanagan and Similkameen, it has been the number one

Industry for around three-quarters of a century. In certain areas

there, it's been longer than that.

This industry, which is very important, is threatened. It provides

direct or indirect jobs through the industry to around 4,500 people. It

contributes around $125 million directly to the economy of the Okanagan

and Similkameen. Right now there are hundreds and hundreds of growers

who are unable to make it, the way the market system is set up now They

simply are not getting enough for their produce. This is a problem, and

it's an ongoing problem I know you realize it, I know the deputy

minister realizes it, and I know most people in the ministry realize

it. I fail to see any progress being made in this area. There have been

promises, yes. You give lip-service to the ALR. Yes, you realize

they're in difficulty, but not much is being done. What is going to be

done in the immediate future? For some of these people, the immediate

future is now.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate your comments, and as you are

well aware, we have been having meetings between our senior staff and

not only the grape growing industry but the whole tree-fruit industry

in the Okanagan. We have prioritized that as the number one issue in

our ministry. We feel it's very important to try to help some of the

producers up there to look at what their potential is in the future. We

will do everything we possibly can to come together with them. If it

requires an inquiry of some kind as to what we can do to ensure their

future for them, we're more than willing to be cooperative. I might say

they have been extremely cooperative with us, and we appreciate that.

We are working together closely, hon. member. I just hope that we can

see the continuation of the fruit industry, because not only is it

important to those 4,500 jobs — and up to 6,000 on occasion — it's very

important to the whole economy of the Okanagan of this province We well

recognize that.

[11:30]

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate the concern of the minister. Perhaps

there's another angle. I'm not sure the angle has been well thought out

by the ministry. If you look at the Maguire report in the early 1980s,

it stressed the natural alliance between the agricultural industry and

the tourist industry. If you examine various polls taken in the

Okanagan and Similkameen and other parts of the province where tourism

has been probably the second industry.... In the Okanagan, they rank

one and two, as you well know. First comes the agricultural industry,

then the tourist industry. Many of those tourists have come to the

Okanagan simply because of the agricultural green belts.

I alluded to the Napa Valley in California yesterday. They've not

only made it work in the Napa Valley; they've made it work in other

parts of the world. It certainly works in certain parts of Europe — in

Italy, where they've safeguarded it very well, in France, in Holland

and so on. I'm wondering whether the ministry has anybody studying what

I consider a natural meshing or melding of these two, as well as the

environmental issues. I feel that there's a natural alignment between

environment, tourism and agriculture. I'd like to hear from the

minister on this point.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: My hon. critic raises a very valid point. I

can assure him that we are working jointly to see what values can be

extended throughout each one of those sectors. As you state, tourism is

extremely important, and it ties in very closely with the Okanagan

orchard industry. I can also say that we would like to see a number of

promotional moves in hotels, restaurants and so on. We can feature

Okanagan fruit. We can feature apples at the hotel desks where guests

can come in and take a B.C. apple. There are lots of ways we can

promote the industry to try to keep it alive. I think we have something

to brag about, and that is the quality of the fruit grown in the

Okanagan. So, hon. member, I concur with what you are saying, and we

are in fact working together to try to do a better job for the industry.

MR. BARLEE: I am glad the ministry is finally realizing that. And I

think you are. I can see some input coming from the ministry. It's kind

of interesting, because I was told yesterday that the Kelowna General Hospital,

the largest hospital in the area.... Do they use Sun-Rype products? No, they

use McCain. Here is the Sun-Rype area, one of the biggest providers of jobs

in the Kelowna area, and the Kelowna General Hospital doesn't even use Sun-Rype

products. It's astonishing to me.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Whose fault is that?

MR. BARLEE: At the hospital....

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, I think it is. If there was an effective and

coherent "Buy B.C." campaign, which I think should be launched, in

answer to the other member, it should be a long-term thing. If I were

launching a "Buy B.C." campaign for B.C. agricultural products, I would

do it through the electronic and print media and would do it very

effectively. It wouldn't be a one-shot deal. With this long-term thing

I would take a pan view of the Okanagan orchards and say: "This is why

you should buy British Columbia fruit." I would take a pan view of one

of the dairy farms in the Fraser Valley or one of the cattle ranches in

the Cariboo and say: "This is why it's alive; this is why it's a link;

and this is why it's important that we keep these green belts." I think

the minister understands that, but I'm not sure everyone on the

opposite side does.

I concur with the minister; it's a good start. But I also think that this should be carried on and that it

[ Page 7189 ]

should be a very long-range plan. It can work. I

think the public is ready to accept that these green belts and the

agricultural industry are important, because they tie in with our

quality of life. There is no doubt about it: they do tie in with our

quality of life. We've got to keep these green belts and keep them very

carefully. We've got to shepherd them.

There is another thing that I am rather concerned about, and I'm not

sure that the ministry has addressed it. The minister mentioned

yesterday the effect of the free trade agreement and all its

possibilities and positives. But I am going to ask the minister one

question: has there been, or is there, an ongoing study by the ministry

on the impact — both negative and positive, long-term and short-term —

that the free trade agreement will have on agriculture in B.C.?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I know that at the present time, for instance, the cattle industry

is doing quite well, the tree fruits industry is not doing well, the

grape industry is decimated and some of the berry crops are doing

extremely well. Is there, or do you envision, a long-term study on

this? It's very important, because things can change. The Americans are

taking 20 million acres out of their wheat reserves. Those 20 million

acres may well go into cattle, and if they do, it will impact on us

negatively. I am wondering whether the ministry is anticipating a study

on that, or are they already working on it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my hon. critic, we have looked at a

number of opportunities under free trade. I guess you could study

things for God knows how long. What we have to do is respond positively

to get the industry in a competitive mode and do what they do best.

They grow quality product in this province, and I think our consumers

are very fortunate. We do advertise extensively the Best Buy B.C.

program. We are launching extensive ads on TV to promote British

Columbia's industry and its product. We also promote via "The Great

Taste of B.C." But the most important thing under free trade is that we

get our producers to be competitive, however we can help them. It's not

going to help them for us to sit and study it. We must act now to try

and get them to be cohesive and competitive in the world marketplace

and in the U.S., our trading partner, where free trade really impacts

on us.

As you stated, hon. member, some sectors will do extremely well. As

I stated yesterday, some will have a bit of a problem. But what we

should really concentrate on is the quality of the product that we

produce in this province and promote it on that basis I can refer to

the estate wineries. Some of our estate wineries produce extremely good

wines. They grow good grapes that produce that product. We should be

promoting that quality more and more and capitalizing on the

opportunities existing from it.

I believe strongly that we recognize that the world around us is

going to have to look at the trade barriers which are put in place.

Those trade barriers cause only one problem: the consumer somehow pays

more. We should reduce those barriers to our best ability so that the

consumer doesn't have to pay for the entire protection.

The other thing, to my hon. critic, is that in agriculture as a

whole under free trade, on a Canada-wide basis it's recognized that

agriculture will do quite nicely. It's also recognized that there will

be some problems in the horticulture sector, which I related to

yesterday. I accept that there will possibly have to be some

adjustments, as there were in the grape-growing business.

I think it's also important to recognize that we should not back

away from the fact that we have an agreement in place. We have to now

facilitate and provide every opportunity we can for our producers to be

competitive.

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate the remark, although I really don't

concur with it. I'll tell you why I don't concur with it. I think what

you do is place the land in jeopardy. I know there are certain sectors

of the industry that will not do well; therefore the government must

have a commitment to the land. I think the minister has a commitment to

the land. I think his ministry has a commitment to the land. But I'm

not sure the minister has enough clout in the inner cabinet to prevail

on this point, and I'll tell you why.

For instance, if we take a look at the erosion of the agricultural

budget through the ministry over the last ten years, it has been

remarkable. About ten years ago — 1979 — the ministry was given about

1.7 to 1.8 percent of the total budget. Then it went down to 1.25. Then

it went down to 0.9. Then it went down to 0.8. Now it's down to 0.7.

HON. S.D. SMITH: What would you reduce?

MR. BARLEE: I will answer the member for Kamloops. The member

for Kamloops is making a great many remarks, not many which really

allude to this particular topic we're concerned with. I am concerned

with the preservation of the land, and I don't think we have the same

commitment. Nor do I think your government — including the inner

cabinet — has that commitment.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Are you saying...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARLEE: If you give lip-service to the ALR, then you must

follow that up with more than lip-service. It requires more than

lip-service; it requires more than the steady erosion of the

agricultural budget, which has been steadily eroded under Premier

[ Page 7190 ]

W.R. Bennett and under Premier Vander Zalm. You

have no commitment to this particular industry. You are treating it as

a sunset industry.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Oh, so you think this budget should continue to go down as it has?

MR CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The debate goes through the Chair, please.

Interjection.

MR BARLEE: Sure he is; I'm really quite surprised. All it does is

illustrate exactly what some members of the inner cabinet think about the ALR

and the budget for agriculture. All it does is bring that very much to the public

forum.

While we're on this, let's go and look at the staff levels. In the

early 1980s and late 1970s there were about 700 people in the Ministry

of Agriculture and Fisheries; then it slipped down to 600; then it

slipped down to 500; now it's about 426 to 415. Many of these

individuals believe in the land. They like their jobs. I see the

continual erosion of the job levels. Is it going to come up, or is it

going to steadily go down?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There is a little bit of a debate going on

about the ALR. Let me assure you. You talked about not so much the land

reserve but more about the support for the producers. You're really

hitting on the question of the kind of support there was for

agriculture production. Let me assure you that in talking about the

budget and its reduction, you criticize it by a percentage point. When

you're budgeting, you identify programs that are for the industry.

If you had to take a look at all ministries, there's nothing more

difficult than trying to forecast the actual market returns that will

come in year in and year out. There's nothing for sure, except maybe

those in the supply management sector. I can tell you that it's very

difficult to predict what the market return will be for grapes or for

apples — if I can use the reference to your particular riding. I can

tell you that on a number of occasions we get people who come forward

from the respective commodity groups to make presentations to our

ministry to have special programs put in place when they run into

difficulty.

I'll tell you, hon. member, we have a very good record of helping

out the agricultural sector when they need it. We went to the inner

cabinet and said: "This is the problem in a given area. This is what's

required in the way of adjustment." I might say I had very good support

from my hon. colleagues, and I commend them for that.

On the issue of the FTEs, I think it's important to recognize that

it's not unique to Agriculture and Fisheries that we had a reduction in

FTEs; it happened throughout government. Also, I'd like to commend the

staff for the effort they put forward. They work extremely hard on

behalf of — guess who? — the agriculturalists, the farmers and, above

all, the people of this province. They are representative of a very

important industry — extremely important. So few of us realize that

what our farmers and our staff work towards is producing a good quality

product for the consuming public, and that is food. Boy, is that ever

necessary for the survival of the human body. We will continue to

strive for that.

[11:45]

MR. SERWA: I think I would be remiss if I didn't enter into

the debate with the Minister of Agriculture. I've been listening to my

opposition colleague, the second member for Boundary-Similkameen, for

some time, and I know that he is a neophyte in his role as critic and

as an MLA. As a lifelong member of the Okanagan community, I am

somewhat surprised that he has a shortfall in his knowledge about some

areas of agriculture. I'm somewhat disappointed with the tack that he

has taken.

I think that we collectively recognize that agriculture, especially

horticulture in the Okanagan, has serious difficulties. There's no need

to emphasize or expand on those. I think what we're looking for, Mr.

Minister, is some positive and constructive assistance to the

horticulture industry. In actual fact, much of the plight of the

horticulture industry tan be traced back to the NDP and their

agricultural land freeze in their brief tenure of government here.

What transpired at that particular time was their short-term

commitment — in lieu of any type of compensation — and failure to

recognize that what they called a rezoning process was perhaps the

greatest theft perpetrated on any free people in a democracy, which was

taking a package of rights away from freehold landowners. They did this

without any compensation or recognition. I think that a lot of the

problems that we find ourselves in is a legacy of that commitment.

They did make a commitment to see that agricultural sectors enjoyed

economic viability. Like many of their commitments, nothing was done in

any great detail. We still fight the legacy of their involvement in

such things as the forced amalgamation of the city of Kelowna, which

hasn't been resolved yet, because things weren't drawn up and inked

properly by an amateur government.

We have to recognize that here in Canada, of all of the free nations

of the world, we spend perhaps the lowest percentage of our disposable

income on food — 16 percent to 17 percent. The second member for

Boundary-Similkameen referred briefly to Europe and also to the Napa

Valley. There is a great cultural difference there. We have nations

that collectively were confronted with two world wars. They knew the

devastation and the difficulties with food production, and they value

food production exceedingly highly. In North America generally, we've

lived in a land truly of milk and honey and of plenty. Yes, Europe does

place a greater emphasis on agricultural production, and 1 percent of

the gross national product of the European Export Community is

committed to subsidizing agricultural production. If you

[ Page 7191 ]

look at the size of that gross national product of

the European Export Community, you can acknowledge the degree of

subsidization that confronts us as an absolute challenge in our

productivity. Close to 70 percent of agricultural cost of production is

subsidized through that free market.

Our agricultural producers, as we know, are impacted by a lot of

inflated inputs: labour, energy, equipment, spray materials, water and

land. All of these inputs are highly inflated, yet we're trying to tell

our people that they have to produce agricultural products and sell at

the world market price. We had an excellent agricultural forum in

Kelowna, and I think the issue was fairly well covered. It's virtually

impossible to do that.

We have two different issues being discussed by the second member

for Boundary-Similkameen here today, and they're related, but they are

separate. He discusses the ALR and the economic viability of

agriculture. When I speak about agriculture, probably I'll restrict my

remarks to the horticulture industry, which is dominant in the

Okanagan. Certainly a lot of the charm, beauty and the quality of life

that we enjoy in the Okanagan is because of the horticulture industry.

There are certainly problems that we're confronted with, but these

problems are not simply governmental problems. No dominant government,

by being larger or throwing more money at the package, is going to

resolve this. Society collectively bears responsibility. When we look

at Europe — and I'm familiar with northern Italy and Austria.... A

number of years ago I was in Austria in my involvement with the

ski-lift business, and I was inquiring into the price of agricultural

farmland there. I was told that some bottom land, which was hay

production land in the valley bottom, was worth $90,000 a hectare — for

2.5 acres, $90,000. This was in the mid-1970s. Obviously society there

has placed a high value on agricultural land. It is apparent from the

land prices in the Napa valley that society has placed a high priority

and a high value on that particular land mass. It produces

splendid-quality grapes with a good balance of sugars and acids to

produce premium wines. It survives in a market economy at the valuation

society collectively places on it.

But society collectively has spoken in British Columbia. That's one

of the dilemmas facing our agricultural producers. They have no option;

they are frozen in. They have no bargaining position nor any bargaining

stance that they can take. This is enunciated by the recognition that a

group of agriculturalists who have long-term commitments to

agriculture, some the fourth and fifth generation residents of the

Okanagan Valley, are part and parcel of a large group of individuals

requesting that some 3,000 acres or 4,000 acres come out of the

Okanagan Valley. Obviously they like farming, they have enjoyed it,

they enjoy the quality of life, they're knowledgeable, capable,

hard-working. Economic viability isn't there. Any equity they've had,

and in some places they've had 100 percent equity, has been eroded over

the years. They're on second and third mortgages, and that's what

they're living on.

We have to recognize the fact that, as I said, society has spoken.

Society says that the agricultural land, which is a motherhood issue,

is not valued very highly by society. We place much higher values on

residential land, on industrial land, on commercial land. That's how

society has spoken. Society also speaks when it goes to the

supermarkets and does not buy British Columbia agricultural products.

Society speaks when you recognize that fundamentally the loyalty is

more often to price rather than to the country of origin of the

product. Society also speaks — with some duplicity, unfortunately —

when we are not permitted to use certain pesticides, herbicides or

fungicides here in Canada and especially in the province of British

Columbia; yet food chains that originate in jurisdictions where these

restrictions are not available are able to market their product in this

society.

When we look at this, it's not a simple type of problem. Yes, I

think that, partially, government is involved. Certainly society

collectively is involved. But the industry itself is involved too. When

I spoke about the results of the land freeze and the legacy that is

left, part of it is simply this: when the growers were promised

economic viability, they stopped tending to the costs that were

incorporated into the system. The costs are from transportation, from

packing costs, from all of the ancillary costs, marketing costs, to

take the agricultural production — apples is the one I'm talking about

— to market, because of the subsidy that government was committed to

provide. So what there was was less resistant, perhaps, to the upward

spiral of the incorporation costs.

For example, the apple-grower at the moment receives 2.1 cents a

pound for his apples from the marketplace. He used to get all of his

return from the marketplace. As the subsidies went up, he accepted less

and less from the marketplace and more and more from the government. In

a way, he abdicated some of his responsibility for the control of his

own destiny. Packing costs presently run about 15.3 cents a pound.

That's over seven times the cost to the grower. The selling costs per

pound work out to 3.5 cents, which exceeds, again, one and a half times

the return that the grower receives. So we run into a wholesale cost of

20.9 cents per pound in apples. Now when I look in the supermarkets,

whether it's in Kelowna or Vancouver or Victoria, I see prices of 79

cents to 89 cents per pound. I think that the fruit growers have to

recognize that they have to have a handle on the costs, because the

costs of packing are a chargeback to the returns that the grower

rightfully expects.

I believe that the marketplace, in actual fact, is paying a fair

price for the product. Our problem is that a whole industry stands on

the shoulders of the grower, but the grower, fundamentally, is not

getting the return. The return is picked off through the system before

it trickles down to him. I'm really concerned about the future of the

horticulture industry in the Okanagan Valley.

[ Page 7192 ]

We have a number of suggestions, and the growers are effective,

efficient managers. We're looking at dwarf trees to increase production

and reduce the input costs. They're doing all sorts of things.

Certainly there are some hazards involved, and this last freeze was an

example of some of the problems that we're confronted with, because the

dwarf trees are relatively shallow-rooted. When the snow cover went and

the cold weather and the frost came, we lost a fair number of the trees.

What the honourable member from Boundary Similkameen doesn't realize

or doesn't dwell on or doesn't emphasize adequately is that saving the

land is not enough. Fundamentally we have to save the farmer. I will

say this on behalf of my colleagues from the Okanagan Valley, the

member from Okanagan North (Hon. L. Hanson), my colleague the second

member from Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself and my colleague

the first member from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer): at the time

of the implementation and the recognition of the free trade agreement,

there was a great deal of earnest activity to ensure that a

compensation package was realized on behalf of the grape growers of the

Okanagan.

The 3,000 some-odd acres of grape production are very important to

our economy. We recognize this. We held meetings with the Minister of

Agriculture, the Premier, members of the Grape Marketing Board and the

wineries. In the end, we have achieved an admirable compensation

package which I am exceedingly proud of, and which I believe may be the

only compensation package that has been successfully achieved involving

both the provincial and federal governments in recognition of the

bilateral trade agreement.

The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen indicates "not enough," and

that's a constant hue and cry that I've heard so often, and it's not

surprising. What is enough? We talk about a cost of production of

$10,000. For many years the grape industry in the Okanagan has enjoyed

a substantial amount of economic viability. It was one of the bright

lights in the Okanagan, as far as the agriculture industry is

concerned. The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen has to recognize

that the return to grape growers was very strong and very handsome.

On the basis of the strength of that particular industry, properties

have traded for much higher land values and higher expectations.

Because of the bilateral trade agreement, those expectations were not

realized. They had a closed market, and they had an iron grip on the

sale and on the pricing of grapes The harsh facts of reality, through

the competitive market environment, deny and preclude the extension of

that agreement. Nevertheless, I'm very proud and very pleased with the

agreement and the hard work of the Okanagan MLAs — and that was prior

to your time, hon. member — that we were involved in and the package

that we realized.

I may speak later on as further topics of interest come up in this particular

estimate. It's a very important industry to the Okanagan. The B.C. tree-fruit

industry just concluded their first 100 years as an active organization. I look

forward to seeing it continue, and I hope that some day they will realize their

200th anniversary.

[12:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the

comments that were made by my hon. colleague from Okanagan South.

Certainly we as a government well recognize how important the

agriculture and fisheries industries are to the province of British

Columbia. As was said yesterday in my opening comments prior to getting

into the debate of my estimates, the industry is a $10 billion

industry; it's very significant. I think my hon. colleague has made the

point that to the Okanagan Valley, it's an extremely important industry.

I think the points raised by the member relative to some of the

difficulties, how we are competitive, what we are allowed to use, the

cost of inputs and what we are getting in the way of return from the

marketplace.... I don't think my hon. colleague mentioned that the cost

of producing those apples is about 14 cents, and they're getting around

two cents. I don't know too many businesses that survive on that basis

for very long. Consequently, we have had a program that has tried to

help them. But beyond that, as I mentioned earlier, we had to put a

special program in place for the 1987 crop, which we were very pleased

to offer to help sustain those producers who suffered very grave

difficulty with the Red Delicious crop.

MR. BARLEE: I thank the minister for his explanation. But to

get back to several points made by the first member for Okanagan South,

whom I've known for many years, I think it comes down to a difference

in fundamental or basic philosophies, and I take issue with several of

the points he made. Certainly the marketplace does dictate certain

things, but I think when it's an issue as important as the survival of

the orchard lands and the agricultural greenbelt, maybe the marketplace

should be in second place.

I'll tell you why. We only produce about a quarter of 1 percent of

the world's apples, and because of various things, we probably never

will be completely competitive.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Therefore we have a choice to make: either we keep the ALR, or we

let it go. I think we should keep it, and I'll tell you why we should

keep it. We have about 4 percent of the lands in British Columbia in

the ALR. But out of that 4 percent, only half of 1 percent are really

very fertile lands. Many of those lands are in class 1, class 2 and

class 3 in the Okanagan, and I think they're worth preserving. I think

the original social contract made in 1973 should be honoured. I know

that it places a burden upon the government; I know that it may not be

popular. I know it may not fit the marketplace. I am saying it's worth

it.

[ Page 7193 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I am saying that the greenbelt — which I guess

the member for Kamloops does not agree with — is worth saving. I think

it is worth saving. I think the livelihood of these farmers is worth

saving, and the government should realize this. I don't think that

commitment is being carried on. I have seen a continual erosion of it

for many years, and I am concerned about it. I am not the only one

concerned about it. A lot of your former adherents or former followers

are equally concerned about it.

A couple of things come to mind. Evidently the British Columbia

Federation of Agriculture is now talking about a disaster relief fund.

I would like the minister to explain exactly what is going on in the

negotiations with the BCFA concerning the so-called disaster relief

fund, which I understand is to provide funds for certain parts of the

industry that may be suffering severe economic penalties.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would just like to make a few remarks on

the minister's estimates and perhaps at the same time respond to a

couple of the points made by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen.

He talks about the preservation of the ALR, and I know that our

minister is certainly very much a supporter of the agricultural land

reserve and of preserving farmland.

I want to say for the record that to my memory the two largest

parcels of prime agricultural land ever taken out of the agricultural

land reserve occurred during the years 1974 and 1975. There are

occasions where I have witnessed and have been a part of decisions

where large units of the agricultural land reserve, such as 20-acre

plots, have been reduced in size to perhaps five acres and maintained

and kept in the agricultural land reserve, where it has been proven

they are more productive agriculturally in smaller parcels than they

were in larger parcels. So I think there are many positive things being

done in that area.

I couldn't help but hear the member's comments regarding the "Buy

B.C." program. I want to say that I don't think there's a province in

our country that is more supportive and does more in working hand in

hand with the agricultural community — and, indeed, industry and

commercial developments — than the province of British Columbia. I

think of the "Buy B.C." program as having been extremely successful One

only has to go in any supermarket and witness the success of the

program.

Also, Mr. Chairman, under this administration the percentage of British Columbia

products sold by the B.C. Ferry Corporation on those beautiful vessels has increased

during this administration from 57 percent B.C. content to well over 90 percent.

We know that it will never reach 100 percent, because there will always be a

need to encourage outside products to perhaps test the market so we can further

encourage development within British Columbia. So new products will always be

necessary, but we have improved and increased the B.C. content during this administration

from around 57 percent to well over 90 percent.

If the member were to spend any amount of time examining what is

being done in other areas of the government, such as the B.C.

Purchasing Commission supplier development division, he would find many

other success stories in that area.

He mentioned Sun-Rype products being in hospitals of British

Columbia. He mentioned Kelowna in particular, and I can advise the

member he can go to most hospitals in our province and witness similar

products being sold from McCain. Perhaps it would do him well to visit

the Sun-Rype management and discuss their problem as to why they're not

able to penetrate the hospitals, airlines, Kelowna airport cafeteria,

etc.

He will find two things. First of all, he will find the product is

being rejected by hospitals and airlines primarily because of the

container. It is a rectangle container with a straw, and when you

squeeze the container the ingredient spills over either the patient's

or the passenger's lap, and it is just not acceptable. You talk to the

management as to why the container is that way and why they don't make

them along similar lines to McCain's, and you will find that the

federal government has subsidized McCain to the tune of millions of

dollars to provide them with the infrastructure and the tools to do the

job to retool their operation.

It's interesting to look at our federal MPs — members of the New

Democratic Party back in Ottawa — addressing problems such as this. The

member would be well advised to read Hansard coming from Ottawa and see where his cohorts back in Ottawa point their attention. I have spent many hours reading Hansard ,

and in question period it seems that his members back in Ottawa are

much more interested in things like what's going on in South America,

Nicaragua, budget leaks and nuclear subs, and the story goes on and on.

It's rare to see any of those federal NDP members ever talking about

the interests of the province of British Columbia — whether it's

subsidies to McCain versus Sun-Rype, whether it's B.C. jobs, whether

it's a fair share of the Ottawa pot for British Columbia, and things of

interest to the province.

Before closing I do want to commend our Minister of Agriculture and

Fisheries. I think it should be highlighted and perhaps spoken about

more often: the tremendous successes in agriculture in this province,

without any direct assistance from government. I think it's timely to

read into the record and to speak for a few minutes about those success

stories, without any direct provincial assistance.

Let's talk about aquaculture. The salmon industry and aquaculture

have grown over the last five years from zero to $50 million in value;

that's in five short years. That figure is growing exponentially. Talk

about the shellfish industry. Again, no direct government assistance —

it has grown from zero to $20 million in five short years. Talk about

the greenhouse

[ Page 7194 ]

flowers: doubled production value, from $25 million

to $50 million, in the last five years. Talk about the raspberry

industry, another growth industry: from $13 million to $20 million in

seven short years. Cranberries: an increase in production from $10

million to $20 million in the past ten years. Nursery trade: phenomenal

growth — $40 million to $70 million in ten years. Specialized

vegetables doubled in value in the past three years, from $2 million to

$4 million. A brand-new industry in the last year, the game farms: only

one year old and already in the neighbourhood of a million dollars in

production.

I can go through my constituency farm after farm after farm: no

government assistance whatsoever. I look at the lawn sod industry, the

canary feed industry; I look at all types of marketing boards, where

there are no direct government subsidies. I think we should be

encouraging the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Yes, we have

troubled areas in the province. We admit that. We know there are

problems in certain sectors, but we must look for more and more

diversity in the province. Diversity is strength. We must have that

free enterprise spirit; we must use our ingenuity.

We must encourage our farmers to attend the college courses that are

put on. I want to commend the minister for working with the Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). In my constituency

just five short weeks ago a weekend seminar was sponsored by Okanagan

College, the Salmon Arm division. They put on a freshwater aquaculture

course. Scores of people attended that. I believe there were 28 or 30

participants. It was very well received, and it certainly has the

potential to be another growth industry in the interior of the

province, one which does not require any direct government grants or

subsidies.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate the comments The member

recognizes that in his particular riding — and it's the case throughout

British Columbia, by and large — agriculture can boast about a lot of

success stories. I'll tell you, agriculture has a great future, in my

opinion, as do the fisheries. As I stated yesterday, a number of

opportunities are presenting themselves, if we look at the world around

us. That's part of our job as a ministry and as politicians: to look at

opportunities. We encourage not only the involvement of agriculturists

but also of aquaculture and the fisheries sector. We will continue to

do everything we can to make certain that we provide those

opportunities as they come along.

I have heard some comment about the ALR. My hon. colleague just raised the

parcel sizes. Generally speaking, there has always been some concern that if

you downgrade the size of the parcels, it's probably going to end up as

a non-productive unit; that's sometimes the reference. I've also seen

occasions where downsizing a number of those parcels, whether into eight hectares

or even 20 hectares, means that somebody else can get into the business, maybe

in a more concentrated effort. I commend the statement, because in fact it is

true. There are occasions when maybe it does not work that way, but there is

always an effort made when somebody gets a small enough parcel.... The costs

may not be so prohibitive, and they can get into a particular market niche of

their own by growing a given commodity.

[12:15]

I thank the hon. member for those comments. I appreciate that in his

particular constituency there is recognition that agriculture and

fisheries — he mentioned how important aquaculture opportunities are —

have a great future. We will continue as a government, I might add, to

promote the importance of that industry. I, as the minister

representing the Crown, will do everything I can to make sure every

effort is provided to our industry towards its success.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Ministerial Statement

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION DEADLINE

HON. S.D. SMITH: On May 11, the Supreme Court of our province

heard an application for an order which would have effectively forced

members of this House to vote for the enactment of a specific form of

legislation. Such an order, if allowed, in effect would have had the

courts direct each member of this assembly — or at least a majority of

members — to cast their vote in a certain manner. That would have

imposed, in my opinion, a kind of jurocracy on the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Justice Meredith, in the absence of a new Chief justice of the British

Columbia Supreme Court, carefully weighed the issues and this morning rendered

his written decision. I will quote from that decision and table its contents

when I finish:

"The first right which would be violated by the

imposition of a deadline is the right of the members of the Legislative

Assembly to vote according to their convictions. In correcting the

equality imbalance, the members of the Legislative Assembly have

choices to make. To decree that they make one choice or another is to

deprive those members of their right, to say nothing of their

obligation, to vote according to their convictions. I must assume that

good faith will ensure that the convictions will be within

constitutional bounds.

"To establish a deadline beyond which the legislation will not be in place "

— and he places those words in italics — "would be to require that the

majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly agree on a course

of action. I consider it quite beyond the inherent power of the court

to compel agreement. In any case, to do so would be to effectively

legislate. That must also be beyond the remedial powers that are

reposed in the court.

"So I conclude that the establishment of a deadline

would be in direct violation of the rights and obligations of the

Members of the Legislative Assembly,

[ Page 7195 ]

would threaten the violation of the right of the people of British

Columbia to the existence of a Legislative Assembly, and would threaten the

violation of the right of citizens of Canada to vote for Members of a Legislative

Assembly, to say nothing of eradicating the right to vote, whether equal or

not.

"I think it must be left to the Legislature to do what

is right in its own time. For these reasons, I refuse to make the order

applied for."

Mr. Speaker, this decision means our legislators and their

committees can continue to do their work without the potential concern

of some external institution imposing a decision upon them. Their work

began prior to justice McLachlin's decision. Members have a

responsibility to do their duty within the framework of our

constitution, including the Charter, and they, as ever in all

parliaments, have a duty to act on their own volition and according to

their personal convictions whenever they cast a vote in this assembly.

Mr. Justice Meredith has ensured members' independence is preserved.

MR ROSE: I hope the Attorney-General will be as anxious to

read a decision that he doesn't appreciate as he was to read this one,

which I think falls right in line with his own thinking. I take a

little umbrage and criticism at his lack of courtesy in not letting us

know about this decision, when he could easily have let us know so that

we could have had an opportunity, as he did, to prepare a proper

response. I think it's the kind of courtesy which gentlemen and ladies

could encourage in this House, to award that respect to one another.

He's not chosen to do that, which is not really a class act.

HON. S.D. SMITH: This decision was rendered just this

morning. I just received it a few moments ago and prepared my response.

The House Leader advised the opposition House Leader that I would be

speaking in this House. It is a matter of public record. It is a matter

that the opposition could easily have available to them in the same way

as I had it available to me, coming from our independent courts.

Frankly, I am becoming a little nauseous at the sort of whimpering and

whining that comes from that House Leader and from other members over

there when their critics are away and they are paid fulltime by the

people of this province to be here in this House. I think they ought to

be here and ought to respond in the same timely fashion as members on

this side do when they do their duty for the people.

MR. ROSE: I am unaware of the grounds on which the minister

gained the floor. Was it a point of order or something? Or was he as

out of order as he frequently is when he's dealing with this

Legislature?

Interjection.

MR ROSE: What he's doing most of the time is attempting to harass and bully the Legislature. He's a legal bully, that's what he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is....

HON. S.D. SMITH: On a point of order, the word "bully," as we

all know, is unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is

one that ought not to be used.

But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think we should

descend into the kinds of things we used to see in here, when leaders

of parties deliberately got themselves thrown out of the House. That

sort of thing pushes us onto a threshold we ought not to pass.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. S.D. SMITH: When we're dealing with something as important as we are today, the rights of parliament...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. S.D. SMITH: ...I think it behooves the House Leader to respect this parliament and its Chair.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please take your seats.

The Attorney-General rose to make a ministerial statement; it was

responded to by the opposition House Leader. This is not a debate. If

anyone wishes to rise on a point of order that's acceptable, but we are

not debating the statement made by the Attorney-General.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to be free for a moment to express my

thoughts without the usual harassment coming from the front bench over

there. I would just like to respond in kind by saying that when we

descend back into the depths that we left under the Bennett

institution, of which he was a prominent member, that member will be

leading the parade right down into the basement, into the gutter.

That's where you'll be. That's the only place you're comfortable: in

the gutter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we've had enough. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is my privilege to put forward Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

[ Page 7196 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this chamber will come to order and will stay in order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 contains measures

designed to improve the administrative function of British Columbia's

municipalities and to increase the range of powers available to local

government in keeping with our policy of decentralization. It also

contains a variety of measures designed to improve the financial

operation of British Columbia's municipalities by enhancing their

autonomy and increasing their flexibility In addition, the bill

facilitates the ability of local governments to guide development in a

manner which is sensitive to economic, environmental and social

conditions.

The bill introduces measures to improve the function of the

democratic process at the municipal level. It empowers councils and

regional boards to adjust specified area boundaries. It deregulates the

developmental approval process while maintaining its integrity and

introduces a variety of improvements to the way in which the

municipality functions as an organization.

I am therefore happy to move that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not my intention to debate the bill to

extreme in second reading. However, I give the minister notice that

there are some concerns and areas we will wish to canvass. Generally,

though, we think the bill is basically supportable.

There are certain sections we wish to question and discuss,

particularly

section 4 on the ability of local councils to grant

greater tax exemptions to churches, private schools, etc. There may be

some considerations and concerns there, but from what I understand —

and the minister can respond to this in committee — the bill goes

beyond exempting just the building and the Immediate land around it;

the council may now exempt any area of land surrounding the exempted

building or exempted hall. That may be of concern to real estate

property taxpayers. Councils may, in their wisdom, decide to exempt

large tracks of land just because there is a church or municipal hall,

or some kind of activity that is of religious orientation.

[12:30]

The other area deals with the question of the regulation of gravel

and soil pits. This amendment takes away a municipality's ability to

issue prohibitions against the removal of soil and gravel and gives the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I believe, some

responsibilities in that area. I want to know why that happened and

whether there was a specific reason for bringing that kind of change

in. Local councils may be concerned about not having that kind of

responsibility again.

Also, not in a critical way,

section 13, I believe, will deal with

subdivision of lands to provide a residence for relatives. That has

been a sore point for some time, and we'll just get into some general

discussion of that, I believe, in committee.

I don't see any particular problem with the other areas, Mr.

Speaker. We'll have, as I say, some questions on the removal and

deposit of soil, and the tax exemption. Otherwise, we'll be supporting

the bill in principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, you are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is little left to say. I'm happy to move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 21.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND

CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 21 contains measures designed to

improve the function of legislation pertaining to Cultus Lake Park, our

fire services, the homeowner grant, the mobile-home tax,

revenue-sharing, and a variety of enabling and validating measures.

This bill, in a variety of ways, improves the function of democracy

in our province. It enhances our ability to protect ourselves from

fire, modernizes the definition of a mobile home for tax purposes, and

introduces measures which individual local governments have

recommended. as being of significant benefit at the local level.

I therefore move the bill be read a second time now.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the government side these days are

in such bad trouble that they've got to have the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith) do their defence. It's back to the old Bill Bennett days,

the old dirty, dirty Bill Bennett days. Things are so bad.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is basically — and I'm surprised the

minister didn't say it — housekeeping, generally, if the minister will

agree. I've gone through it fairly carefully. I see no major problems

with it. However, there is one

section that I will raise with the

minister. That's

section 5, the Fire Services Act. It's my

understanding that this amendment removes the statutory requirement for

municipalities to inspect hotels, schools, theatres, skating-rinks,

dance-halls and other public buildings at least every

[ Page 7197 ]

two months. There may be some reasons for that, and

the minister can explain it. I have some reservations about taking out

statutory public standards. It may be a liability question, but I'm not

sure we should be removing.... Again, subject to what the minister and

her staff relate to this side of the House, we may wish to move an

amendment in that particular section.

I see no other areas of concern. Generally, I think it cleans up

areas the minister has been working on, and we intend to support the

legislation — subject to

section 5, obviously, which may be subject to

an amendment by myself when we get to committee.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes

Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn the House I would

wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. It looks like the weatherman has

promised to cooperate, and we'll see everyone back here at the usual

time, Monday at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1989,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada