[ Page 2599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

School Amendment Act. Mrs. Dailly –– 2599

Location of offices of Lands, Parks and Housing ministry. Hon. Mr. Chabot re plies 2600

Social Credit caucus meeting with Automotive Retailers Association. Mr. Hall –– 2600

Suspended solids disposal regulations. Mr. Passarell –– 2600

Maplewood Poultry and Willowbrook Meats in receivership. Mrs. Wallace –– 2600

Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Hanson –– 2601

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Barrett –– 2601

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2606

Mr. Cocke –– 2607

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2610

Mr. Skelly –– 2610

Mr. Mussallem –– 2613

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2615

Ms. Brown –– 2616

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2619

Mr. Barber –– 2620

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2624

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a group visiting from Fort Nelson Secondary School in my riding. They are 16 students from Mr. Larsen's grade 11 social studies class, who flew from Fort Nelson to Prince George, came down by B.C. Rail, travelled by bus and ferry — the whole works — and will be flying back. They are getting a good look at the province, to see how the rest of the province appreciates what the Peace River country does to keep them financially alive. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery is a young man who in 1968 had the opportunity to change the course of history in this country and blew it. That was the year that he ran as the NDP candidate against Robert Stanfield, when he led the Conservatives to government. Nonetheless, we never held that against him. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming my brother, Gus Wedderburn, from Nova Scotia, who is visiting us for a few days.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like the members to welcome Bishop Fergus O'Grady, who is a resident in the Prince George area. Bishop O'Grady started at Mission in 1936, the year I was born, and since that time he has been in Kamloops, Williams Lake and Prince George. He is known to many members on both sides of the House. He is presently looking after the Roman Catholic episcopal corporation of Prince Rupert which covers the northern part of our province. Of particular interest are the years and years he has spent in assisting the native population in our province. I would like the House to give him a special welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today we have some visitors from Retalhuleu, Guatemala. This community is sister city to the city of Penticton, and the people in the gallery today have been guests of the chamber of commerce of the city of Penticton and the city council. The leader of their group is Horacio Alejos, who has acted as their interpreter. With Horacio are his mother, his father, Jorge Alejos, a former mayor and congressman in Guatemala, Mr. and Mrs. Rudy Herman and Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Bruni. Accompanying them from the city of Penticton are Hawley and Mitz Fugeta, who have been active as their hosts while they've been in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to bid them a special welcome today on their visit to Victoria.

MR. MUSSALLEM: May I inform you that in the gallery today are good friends and long-time residents of the Dewdney area, who are presently in Maple Ridge, Mr. and Mrs. Olund. I ask you to make them welcome.

In addition, we have a group of air cadets from the Mission area on a citizenship training and Canadian Armed Forces familiarization trip. With them are the company officers, Captain Carl P. Barrett, Second Lieutenant Glen Armstrong and Officer Cadet Shirley Barrett. I ask you to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to a request from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I'm tabling the complete document from which I quoted during my estimates, which is a summary of the proceedings in the open session of the federal-provincial conference of first ministers. The remainder of the document is a summary of the closed session of the same meeting, which is of a confidential nature and isn't part of the tabling.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three questions to do with the same subject, and the questions revolve around another example of bungling by the government when it comes to the preparation of legislation.

My question to the Minister of Education is to do with the latest mistake made by this government in legislation. Under the terms of Bill 20, the School Act has been amended. As the result of the mistake that was made in an amendment to the School Act, it appears that all school trustees in this province have been accidentally reduced to a one-year term in office. My first question is: has the government, through the Minister of Education, decided that every school trustee in this province shall now be elected for a one-year term only instead of the two years which they asked for and were given in legislation in the past?

My second question is: why was Bill 20 the only bill not to be given royal assent in the House last week? Can the minister confirm that this is because one of his public servants discovered the latest error of government bungling in legislation and persuaded the cabinet to withdraw the bill from royal assent?

Mr. Speaker, my final question is: would the Minister of Education and perhaps the government that he represents like some assistance from another source in drafting legislation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that instead of the speech I might have had an offer from the member to assist in some corrective process. Also, it's very tempting to gloat when these things happen.

I can assure the member that the bill was not assented to because I learned that there appeared to be an error by the parliamentary draftsman in not deleting the words "next calendar year,'' which might cause the bill to have the effect the member says: that trustees, instead of holding office for two years, as they had thought, would only hold office for one year.

What I was going to propose today to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is not here, is that he join with me in discharging third reading of the bill. The bill was not assented to for that reason, because it seemed to me that the up-front thing to do is to bring the bill back, discharge third reading and have it recommitted with a technical amendment, which I propose to do before the House.

I thank the member for raising the matter. We were aware of it, and it will be taken care of.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just have a supplementary question. I wonder if the government would consider appointing a lawyer as Minister of Education.

[ Page 2600 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

LOCATION OF OFFICES OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING MINISTRY

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 8, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stated and asked as follows: "At present the regional office of Lands, Parks and Housing comprises about 4 persons in Cranbrook and 11 persons from the old regional Ministry of Lands in Nelson. It has been reported that there has been a decision to move the 11 staff people over to Cranbrook. Could the minister tell me if a decision has been made to move the regional Lands people from Nelson to Cranbrook?"

The Cranbrook regional office has 6 permanent employees and not 4, as stated by the member. In order to consolidate the regional function of Lands, Parks and Housing, it is necessary to move 6 of the permanent positions from Nelson to Cranbrook, and not 11, as stated by the member.

In order to achieve our objective of consolidating the regional function in one office, it became a matter of determining whether 6 employees were to move from Cranbrook to Nelson or whether the 6 employees involved in the regional function were to be moved from Nelson to Cranbrook. It was determined that the most appropriate method of proceeding was to move the employees from Nelson to Cranbrook, as the major activity of Lands, Parks and Housing, which are Crown land agreements, 215.A agreements, interim financing, rural development, senior citizens' housing, land applications and regional adjudications were in the East Kootenay.

I might say at this time that our regional office in Cranbrook which was opened in April 1975 was approved and announced by the former housing minister, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). He recognized in 1975 the need for a presence in Cranbrook. As previously indicated, Cranbrook is now and will continue to be our major activity centre. One of the primary factors influencing this decision was the matter of transportation and communication within the region. The Cranbrook location will involve less travel and easier access to all centres of the region. While Nelson is a centre for Environment, Forests and Highways, in fact the meetings of resource agencies vary between the East and West Kootenays. My ministry has and will continue to have full participation in this inter-agency work. We will continue to maintain our district office in Nelson, which will continue to give this ministry a presence in that community. While I recognize the inconvenience this might cause some employees, the same inconvenience would have occurred regardless of the centre selected.

SOCIAL CREDIT CAUCUS MEETING WITH
AUTOMOTIVE RETAILERS ASSOCIATION

MR. HALL: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as the director of ICBC. I wonder if the minister could advise the House if he attended a meeting of the Social Credit caucus or a committee of that caucus called to meet representatives of the Automotive Retailers Association on May 15 last.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of what is dealt with in the Social Credit caucus is private.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I'll repeat the question. I didn't ask what was dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I asked him if he attended the meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not your business.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm being instructed as to the correctness of my questions by the members opposite. I'm taking my rules from you. Is that correct?

The minister appears to have lost his memory as to whether or not he attended that meeting. Did the minister announce at that meeting that he was attending that meeting under protest?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, my response to the member's question is simply this: what happens in the Social Credit caucus and who we meet with or who we do not meet with is our business and not the opposition's.

MR. HALL: In view of the fact that the minister informed that meeting that he was attending that meeting under protest, I wonder how the minister can reconcile the statement he made on Thursday, saying that his door was open to everybody who can come to talk to him about ICBC problems, with his actions when he was supposed to meet with members of the ARA on May 15 and entered that meeting under protest.

SUSPENDED SOLIDS
DISPOSAL REGULATIONS

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Environment. The federal Minister of Fisheries has exempted the Amax mines project at Kitsault from the suspended solids disposal regulations through an order-in-council. The provincial pollution control guidelines for suspended solids are 150,000 times more permissive than the federal fisheries. What steps has the minister taken to prevent Amax mines from dumping vast quantities of suspended solids into the fishing grounds of Kitsault Arm?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question of the Minister of Environment. What steps has the minister taken to bring the pollution control branch restrictions on suspended solids in line with the federal fisheries regulations?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That is a matter involving government policy, Mr. Speaker.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY AND
WILLOWBROOK MEATS IN RECEIVERSHIP

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is aware, of course, that Maplewood Poultry has gone into receivership. Cheques issued to Island producers just prior to receivership have not been honoured by the banks. The minister offered some funding to Maplewood to keep it operating which was not

[ Page 2601 ]

accepted. Is he prepared to make those funds available directly to assist the producers who have had NSF cheques issued?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the cheques that have not been honoured, but, that being the case, it would probably be a matter for the receiver that has been placed in charge of Maplewood to deal with those outstanding items.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sure that the minister is aware that when a company goes into receivership there is a long time delay before a settlement. Some of the Island producers are out-of-pocket as much as $30,000. Inasmuch as most of that money is owed to cover the cost of the feed and the chicks, is the minister prepared to at least refund the interest on money that they will have to borrow to remain operative, or is he simply going to sit idly by while they go into bankruptcy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member is talking about the Sooke plant specifically or the total Maplewood operation, which includes Clearbrook. I think she is talking about Sooke. The Sooke plant, of course, has now been purchased by Pan Ready Poultry, and I am not aware of whether or not they've accepted all accounts payable — all liabilities in the transaction between the purchaser and the vendor. I assume they probably have, considering the fact that Pan Ready is a producers' co-op. I would think that that co-op would honour those outstanding obligations once the books had been transferred.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm talking about people in my constituency who are faced with debts for feed and chicks and NSF cheques.

A similar situation has occurred in the swine industry in the valley, as I'm sure the minister is aware. The Willowbrook processing plant went into receivership and the bank is now operating it, but those cheques that were issued prior to May 1 have not been honoured. Is the minister prepared to take any action there to assist those swine producers?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again, the member is commenting on something that I'm not aware of. I would have to say that in the case where a company has gone into receivership those are outstanding liabilities. The matter is quite often handled by the receiver; but I have difficulty in looking at the government stepping in in such situations, because, as I'm sure members opposite know, there are many companies that go into receivership. You are setting quite a precedent if you are going to start picking up all the obligations of companies that go into receivership.

GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm informed that responsibility for the Glenshiel Hotel has been transferred to your ministry. At the moment there are 26 vacant suites out of 80 in the Glenshiel. It is virtually impossible to find rental accommodation in Victoria, particularly for senior citizens. Has the minister decided to lift the ban on new tenants going into the Glenshiel Hotel so that people can find a place to live?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I believe the member is a little premature in asking me the question.

MR. HANSON: I've been advised by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that jurisdiction has been transferred to your ministry, and meetings have been held with the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Have you decided to put the Glenshiel Hotel under the B.C. Housing Management Commission and lift the ban and have it fixed up properly for the senior citizens of Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is the intent to have this facility transfer jurisdictions from Highways and Communications to Lands, Parks and Housing. If that does take place, which is a matter of policy decision, it will be administered by BCHMC.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a new subject in the agricultural estimates, just for a few moments, related to the minister's responsibility. Essentially what I have to say is in the area of a difference of philosophy that exists, by performance rather than by statements, between the government and the official opposition.

I think at this stage, Mr. Chairman, there is hardly anyone in the province who is now vocally or politically opposed to preserving agricultural land in the province of British Columbia. Aside from the heat and lack of light generated in this House during the debate on the agricultural land reserve, it's generally accepted that when my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was the Minister of Agriculture, one of the most successful accomplishments of his leadership in that department was pioneering the agricultural land reserve. The people of this province are thankful for that.

At that time the atmosphere was politically charged. There were demonstrations on the lawns of the Legislature. The official opposition at that time, the Social Credit Party, made it very clear that they were opposed to the agricultural land reserve. At that time they were joined by the now new Socreds who were formerly Liberals. They were the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the former Attorney-General, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Minister of Finance (Hon Mr. Curtis), who was at that time a Conservative — also the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the minister who is now leaving the chamber, who I particularly want to address my remarks to, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), as he was at that time, I find it disappointing that the member for Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, is leaving the chamber in this particular debate. But let me remind the House that my colleague at that time pioneered legislation that was later copied by a number of Canadian

[ Page 2602 ]

jurisdictions and studied aggressively by 13 American states. It was the subject of....

Don't hide out there. Come into the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Poor Eileen. Come on in.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's not the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), Mr. Chairman; she supported the agricultural land reserve It's not the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke); he supported the agricultural land reserve. But it was the member for Langley who poked his head in here and then took off down the hall. We'll get to him in a minute.

We took the abuse normally associated with mature parliamentary debate when outside this chamber there were demonstrations of land developers and real estate promoters, who put on straw hats, bunked up a piece of grass, walked up in front of this chamber and said they were defending the rights of farmers to do with their land as they wished. Yes, we went through the debates in this chamber about how preserving farmland was a dangerous socialist plot. Now we must deal with the fact that 80 percent of the population of British Columbia back the concept of the agricultural land reserve and not one of those people would dare stand up publicly and say: "Vote for me and we'll destroy the agricultural land reserve." Is it not correct that the official position now of the Social Credit government is to talk in favour of the agricultural land reserve and preserving farmland? Is that not the official position of the government?

MR. HOWARD: It would seem to be.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, my colleague. It would seem to be that we have a group of born-again land preservers over on the government side who have learned, at least now, to speak from both sides of their mouth. They don't attack the agricultural land reserve; they don't officially oppose the agricultural land reserve; they just allow it to be dribbled away. We lose more and more agricultural land every single day.

One of the most dangerous amendments made to that legislation was made by the Social Credit government when it allowed appeals on the agricultural land reserve to go to a cabinet subcommittee. They placed themselves in the arena of making political decisions about what land should come out of the agricultural land reserve. As a matter of fact, the former chairman of the agricultural land reserve said about the particular case I'm going to talk about, the Gloucester estates, that that particular case was a political decision.

I am going to talk about the transcripts of the ELUC. I'm going to talk about the position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is also the member for that area. I'm going to talk about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that property still before the courts?

MR. BARRETT: It's not the matter that's before the courts, my friends, because I like to be in order at all times. I would be in order in here because we have one of the most competent chairmen of chambers anywhere in the Commonwealth.

We have witnessed a string of political interference in the agricultural land reserve. We have witnessed a government that, when in opposition, fought against the agricultural land reserve and, when in government, found that it was a popular, desirable social and economic goal and then started to go around the back door to getting land out of the agricultural land reserve. There are just three cases that raise doubts in people's minds about political interference. The first one I want to refer you to, Mr. Chairman, is in 1977. Does the minister know a Doug Brett?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: You do? Is he a Social Credit colleague of yours?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Brett Motors, in Chilliwack.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A nod of the head is interesting. The minister seems to have a better memory about 1977 than he does of a couple weeks ago and the ARA. He has a selective memory.

Mr. Brett got eight acres removed from the agricultural land reserve by ELUC after a special appeal by the Chilliwack MLA. Prior to this the Land Commission had rejected this exclusion twice. Political interference? I don't know. But Mr. Brett somehow seemed to have the political clout to get the politicians to remove the land from the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Len Bawtree, the former MLA for Shuswap, supported Seymour Arm Estates and its bid to have 424 acres on Shuswap Lake removed from the agricultural land reserve. In spite of the lengthy commission investigation and objections to the exclusion by the regional district and the federal fisheries, the Environment and Land Use Committee approved the removal of land in the ALR in a hearing that lasted only 25 minutes. A little whiff of politics and down the tube goes the regional district. A little whiff of politics and down the tube go two earlier rejections. A little whiff of politics and the federal fisheries go down the tube.

Then we come to Gloucester estates and the decision to remove it from the agricultural land reserve. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has to be praised. He's on the Environmental Land Use Committee that heard the appeal on the Gloucester estates and he said that he would not participate in the decision itself — he wouldn't vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to my best knowledge the Gloucester Properties matter is still before the courts. Unless the Leader of the Opposition can prove otherwise, I believe he's out of order in dealing with a matter that is before the courts and sub judice.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for raising this point, because it's necessary for me to remind the House that earlier in this session the same point was raised and it was found that sub judice was not applicable in this case. It was already decided once this session. Now that we've had that decision....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture on a further point of order on the same matter.

[ Page 2603 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am dealing with the matter of the decision by the judge who dealt with that case, which involved the Agricultural Land Commission, that no actions, no hearing and no debate should be carried on while that matter was before the court. This meant that the Agricultural Land Commission could not deal with it, and I consider this House and its debate would fall into the same category under that judge's ruling. I ask for some advice, Mr. Chairman. Possibly you could give us some guidance and the Leader of the Opposition could go onto some other matter in the meantime.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter raised by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the Minister of Agriculture on the points of order are, I think, worth the time of this House to take just a few moments to discuss the details that are before us. In the meantime, prior to the Chair coming back with some kind of further considered opinion on it, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to possibly discuss another aspect that the member is referring to without the specifics of the one under consideration now. I will undertake to bring that information back to the House just as quickly as possible.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your ruling. I will confine my remarks purely then to the minutes of the Environment and Land Use Committee rather than the merits or demerits of the case. I do think it's important, though, to point out that to my knowledge there is nothing from the court suggesting that this chamber avoid this subject. As a matter of fact, no court has any authority to determine what is or what is not discussed in this chamber. Thank you, I wanted to point that out.

Therefore, until I have your full ruling on the matter as sub judice, I want to confine my remarks to the July 4, 1979, hearing of the cabinet's Environment and Land Use Committee minutes, which are public documents and will not be editorialized by myself. I want to read from these documents, because they are a matter of public record and they have no influence on the court case whatsoever.

It is a matter of record that one of the members of the committee was the member for Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He had decided that because this sensitive matter about an appeal of the removal of some 600-plus acres from the Environment and Land Use Committee....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you quoting from Hansard, or are you editorializing?

MR. BARRETT: No. Just a minute now. I'm quoting directly from the minutes of the meeting of ELUC. The committee met to hear an appeal by Gloucester Properties. I quote from the transcript of the July meeting. Mr. Chairman, the minister said that he did not wish to vote, but I read the transcript of the words that were spoken, a matter of public record of the transcript, given wide distribution by a Vancouver newspaper that is notorious for its quotation of cabinet ministers and as a result has earned itself the honour of being attacked as vicious, because it quotes cabinet ministers correctly. Well, let's listen to these quotations directly from the transcript.

"HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am disturbed, and it gives me an opportunity to say this, perhaps for the first time, about some of the reasons we get from the Land Commission in terms of alienation. And it's my opinion that it is really none of the Land Commission's business if we have enough industrial land or not. "

That is a statement from a cabinet minister in Environment and Land Use....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's out of context.

MR. BARRETT: Out of context! Well, Mr. Chairman, if it's out of context, perhaps he could put it into context. But I quote here: "It is really none of the Land Commission's business if we have enough industrial land or not." Out of context of what? It is out of context of a philosophy, if I may be permitted, that has already committed itself to the concept that they are annoyed by the Agricultural Land Commission to begin with.

Then the minister went on to say he really believes in the Gloucester proposal; he has no expertise in the field of agrology — a confession. All the agrologists say that it's agricultural land. Then I go on to quote the minister:

"But I've lived in the area for a long time, and I've watched this land, and it has never been considered anything else but either commercial or industrial land. I can't recall any member of the community having any consideration of this land for agricultural purposes as long as I've lived in the Langley area, which is about 25 years now."

That's quoting; that's all. It's a matter of public record. Don't flush. Don't blush. Cool. That's the reality.

The minister went on to say, in opposition to keeping this land in the land reserve:

"I do believe as well that there has not been enough care taken in rating the land by the Land Commission and its agents. I think that the comparison we have here given today by Mr. Runka, in terms of other land which is of similar soil classification being used for agricultural purpose, is extremely simplistic. "

He confesses that he's not an agrologist; he confesses that his only knowledge of the land is because he's lived in the area for 25 years, but then he attacks the professional competence of the Agricultural Land Commission by saying that they've been simplistic in having these tests — no evidence of any tests contrary to the Agricultural Land Commission; no presentation to the committee of any scientific knowledge other than a feeling for the area.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. This is a case that will be disputed by professionals. The courts will not be under political influence. But I do believe that ELUC was purely a political decision, based on the speech by the minister. He goes on to say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The House Leader on a point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was in my room when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was making a point. Then I heard my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

[ Page 2604 ]

rise on a point of order dealing with the sub judice rule. I would very much like just to articulate the sub judice rule for the guidance of all members of the House, Mr. Chairman, because I understand you're considering the point in question. I'm reading from the Journals of January 20, 1956, on a decision by Speaker Irwin. He says:

"There's nothing mysterious about the words 'sub judice.' A matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that matters sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a motion is twofold. In the first place, it might be inferred that a breach of this rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to the court, but might also be considered an improper usurpation of the powers of the court or an attempt to influence the court — an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary. In the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper tribunal."

I am not putting any reflection upon the leader of the official opposition, nor upon my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. But I think there is a very fine line here, and I think that fine line should be very carefully followed by all members of the Legislature in this debate. If we start to move into the area that is sub judice, I would respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you draw the member to order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his comments. I am very careful. The court case deals with the matter of jurisdiction over the decision, and that I will not discuss. The court case came about because of the Premier's statements requesting that ELUC reconsider the decision. Gloucester has gone to court because there is apparently no authority to fulfill the Premier's request. The land is now in limbo. The court will not discuss the merits — as we see it — of whether or not the land should stay in. The problem before the courts, which I will avoid completely, is whether or not the court has jurisdiction. I do have opinions about that, but I won't express those opinions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for his remarks. Also in the ruling of Speaker Irwin, he refers to a decision in New South Wales in 1932. "The late Sir Daniel Levy, then Speaker, ruled that it was not for the Speaker to microscopically sift the relevant from the irrelevant evidence" — because the Speaker obviously does not have that power or that capacity, or the evidence before him — "but to liberally…"

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Absolutely nothing; I am just seeing that we follow the appropriate rules of debate. If you don't mind letting me finish the quotation, I'd like to.

"…apply the sub judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate."

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what is being canvassed here is not the question that is before the court at all. If the minister believes it is, he should bring in the writ. What is being canvassed here is why the land was allowed to be taken out of the land reserve and given to the Chilean consortium for industrial development. What is being canvassed here is why the Minister of Environment was signing leaves to appeal as if he was giving out popcorn at a theatre, although that is a judicial act. That is not before any court in the land. It is before the people of this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was hoping the member would come to the point.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am. The point is very clear. What we are talking about is why this government allowed that 625 acres to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve. The court case is a case saying, on behalf of the Chilean consortium, that you can't put it back in again. They're trying to block you on that. That part we have to leave alone, because that is before the courts. But we want to know why that land was let go, and why ELUC acted the way it did, and why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources took the position he did when he was dealing with his own friends.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, points of order must not stretch into speeches at any time.

Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, hon. members must appreciate that the Chair does have some difficulty in trying to assemble facts of which it is not totally aware and is not in possession. Until the Chair is able to make some determination, I would ask hon. members to possibly refrain from the specifics that are involved, to stick to the general points the Leader of the Opposition was referring to prior to the specific case that is presently before us, and to allow the Chair some time to come back to the House with a little more information.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. You and I were doing well until politics intervened. That frequently happens in this chamber. I want to stick purely and strictly to the relevant matter, which is really the only appropriate matter that can be discussed under the minister's estimates, and that is the reason why land is removed from the agricultural land reserve. I am selecting one case, which I will not refer to in terms of the court case that is going on, where the Premier screwed it up — I won't refer to his screwing it up, either — by making the statement that the land should be going back through ELUC. That has now become a messy court case — which I won't refer to as a messy court case — which my colleague referred to and which the former Attorney-General objected to. Have you got that all down? Now we can deal with the matter.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources sat on the committee and announced that he had become an expert on whether or not the land should stay in the land reserve because he lived next to the land for 25 years. Mr. Chairman, if that is the criterion for expertise, then I'm entitled to be just as qualifying. I've lived in British Columbia all my life. When I look at a mountaintop, I know you can't grow carrots on top of the mountain. But when I look....

Interjection.

[ Page 2605 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that minister should not interject about anything to do with any kind of roofs or any kind of tops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Vicious attack!

MR. BARRETT: You know, one of the things I've learned in this House is that if you're talking in the House and nobody interrupts you, you know you must be on a subject that doesn't bother anybody. But when you talk about something that upsets the government, they're constantly interrupting. It's bad manners. It's worse than bad manners; I think it is guilt-motivated. And when I hear that forced laugh by the member who used to hand out appeals like popcorn in the lobby of a theatre, as my friend so aptly puts it, I begin to think that you doth laugh too much, if I may paraphrase something, Mr. Chairman. The minister doth choke up too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice.

MR. BARRETT: I'm trying to be nice. But I find it interesting that in their drive to make posterity they have recorded minutes of what they said at committee meetings and these minutes come home to haunt them. I'm saying to you that there was straight political interference in removal of that property from the agricultural land reserve.

I want to go on further and read what the minister said. I think it's appropriate to understand how they feel about civil servants they don't agree with. This is what they say after they hire experts and the experts tell them that things aren't so good. This is what they say when they disagree. I'm quoting the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the MLA from Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), from the minutes. Here are the full minutes, Mr. Speaker, if they'd like an autographed copy.

"I do believe, as well, that there has not been enough care taken in rating the land by the Land Commission and its agents. I think that the comparison that we are given today by Mr. Runka in terms of other land which is of similar soil classification being used for agriculture purposes is extremely simplistic."

Here is the minister saying that the measure of the land has been simplistic. He's lived beside it for 25 years and he knows it best. He's saying that Mr. Runka is being simplistic. This is Mr. Runka's background, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Runka is a graduate from UBC with a bachelor of science in agriculture degree with a major in soil science in 1961. He received a master's in natural resources management and land use planning from Cornell University in 1967. He has worked with the soils survey branch of the B.C. Agriculture ministry and has written two detailed soil surveys of the Matsqui municipality. He has also worked as a B.C. field co-ordinator for agriculture and forestry with the Canada Land Inventory program; wrote two documents that form the basis of the CLI's work. He is a member of the Institute of Agrologists, and in 1978 was named B.C. agrologist of the year.

This is a man who is an acknowledged expert in soils, an acknowledged expert in British Columbia soil conditions, an acknowledged specialist expert in the Matsqui area in land, and he is being attacked at a committee meeting by the member for Langley as being too simplistic, because the member for Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources says: "I know it better. I lived beside it for 25 years." That says it all for UBC. Pack up the whole department of agrologists over there. Pack up all of Discovery Park. Don't spend another dime on research. Just hire the minister. He knows it all just by being close to the land.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Don't say that. I don't want that member to repeat that, being close to his friends. It's got nothing to do with his campaign committee chairperson, as someone is alleging. Politics has got nothing to do with this. These people are as pure as the driven snow.

MR. LEA: On Mount St. Helens.

MR. BARRETT: The minister goes on after attacking Mr. Runka and says: "It is my opinion, as a reasonably active member of the community over a long time.... .. What is his reasonable activity in the community? He's a politician. An honourable profession. To be successful you must be reasonably active. But he goes on to say: "It is my opinion, as a reasonably active member of the community over a long time, that basically the whole community is in favour of this proposal being developed for industrial purposes, and I also believe that it is an example of almost perfect industrial land." So says Mr. McClelland — and I use the name only because it's used there.

Mr. Chairman, is it not the purpose of government to listen to the advice of people with professional expertise they hire themselves, and not to fly in the face of political pressure? Is it not the purpose of government to take decisions based on the best need of the total community, and not to bow to political pressure?

The minister goes on to say: "It's not good agricultural land." The minister also said he received letters from B.C. Hydro indicating it was in favour of the proposal. Why, Mr. Chairman? You and I should know why: Hydro will benefit from the ELUC decision because it has a rail line running through the area and expects to get some of the transportation business from industries located there. It has been told by Gloucester that its industrial park subsidy company can develop about 80 acres adjoining the tracks, in a straight swap for a similar-size parcel of land nearby that is still in the agricultural land reserve.

Committee members who were present at that meeting.... Well, Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. Just as I was going to read the list of who the committee members were, I realized that as soon as I raised the subject they all took off.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm here.

MR. BARRETT: One guy is there — the patsy of the group. You've got to stay there.

Here are the committee members who were there: Highways minister Alex Fraser — missing; Energy minister Jim Hewitt — he's here, but he is now Minister of Agriculture; Forests minister....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has just brought to my

[ Page 2606 ]

attention that he's dealing with matters that deal with the Land Commission and that were prior to my term in office. I wonder whether I can have some guidance as to whether or not I am put in a position of answering.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a valid point. I'm only referring to it because he was present at the meeting and now is Minister of Agriculture. But I appreciate the minister's sudden conversion to being a student of the rules of this House, and since he's so interested, he would also know that it is my obligation, having quoted from a document which bears his name, that I must table the document.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not in committee.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I wouldn't dare think of doing it in committee, but I know that one of my own colleagues might jump up and say: "Stick to the rules. When we rise out of committee, you're going to have to table that document, member for Vancouver East " I will be shamed and embarrassed into tabling the document from which I quoted the minister's statement, so I can stay in order. I want to thank the member for keeping me in order.

Also there were: "Forests minister Tom Waterland" — missing; "Municipal Affairs minister Bill Vander Zalm" — he's here.

MR. LEA: But sort of missing.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, he is here, When the leader is away, we know who plays. And who's that fellow beside him? I expect to hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs how he feels about his role in the ELUC decision to take this acreage out of the agricultural land reserve. I'll bet you this: I'll bet you know a great deal more about soils than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources does. I'll bet you that and I'll grant you that too, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEA: Would it grow tulips, for instance?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I went out there and saw it, and want to tell you how God planned this land, just so people can understand. I went out to the property and I was told that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. We drove out in a bus, a group of us, and we were followed by photographers and we were followed by TV cameras.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And all your hacks.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. A little nervous, are you? Well, that's fine.

We got off the bus and we walked along the road where the property was, and on one side of the road you could see a line from the road down out of sight along the property line. On one side of the property line was scrub brush, land that wasn't cleared, and right on the property line was land that was cleared, ploughed and getting ready for a crop. Now God didn't subdivide the land; man did. On the side that Gloucester Properties' property was on, it has not been cleared; it has not been made into agricultural land. But we are to be told that it is not agricultural land at all, when running down the very edge of it and side by side is land that is considered by the owner and the agricultural land reserve as prime agricultural land. Did God come down from the heavens and say: "I'm going to draw a line down here, straight as a die, right along the edge of this property, and on one side there shall be agricultural land and on the other side there shall be land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve"?

MR. BARBER: Just like he parted the Red Sea.

MR. BARRETT: Just like he parted the Red Sea. He did not divide the land, Mr. Chairman. Any damned fool could see that that property is good agricultural land and available to be used as agricultural land. I'm not talking about any damned fool; I'm talking about a group of specific ones. They have been recorded here in these minutes as flying in the face of all the experts and saying that this is not agricultural land. They have left the suspicion in the public's mind that politics has more part to play in a decision on agricultural land than logic and reason.

In the committee the minister went on to say that he thought his decision was best because he lived next to it. I accuse that minister of being impotent in the face of political pressures.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Who, me?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you. I accuse you, through you, Mr. Chairman, of being impotent in the face of pressures from real estate developers and land scalpers who want to get agricultural land out of the reserve. I accuse this government of deliberately moving land out of the reserve on the basis of political influence, not scientific interests at all. I accuse that minister of caving in to real estate interests and allowing land to be lost simply on the basis of influence, not on the basis of reason. My time is up but I will be back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the Minister of Agriculture I would ask at this time that the previous speaker must withdraw the reference to "fools," as it was made in his speech. I would ask at this time that he withdraw that inference.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "fools" but not "damned." Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both would be appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I withdraw the words "damned fools."

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was, at the beginning of my remarks, going to make the same request. I thought it was unparliamentary for the Leader of the Opposition — a man who has held the position of Premier of this province — to use that kind of language in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I struck a chord. Do you remember they were talking about response over here? Did you see what happened? All of a sudden they all came alive over there.

I just want to respond somewhat to some of the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. In regard to the property that he commented on, I can tell this House that

[ Page 2607 ]

in many instances where I've sat on the Environment and Land Use Committee we've had regional district endorsement and municipal endorsement of a withdrawal from the agricultural land reserve. That committee has had to determine in its own mind that the appeal should not be allowed. The Leader of the Opposition would lead you to think that the committee caves in under pressure. But, of course, he doesn't refer to the many, many numbers of cases or appeals that are heard where the appeal is denied. Whether the appeal is granted or denied the Leader of the Opposition would not tell this House, the press gallery or the people in the gallery that at a meeting of the Environment and Land Use Committee we have the opportunity to hear a submission from the Agricultural Land Commission representatives, from the agrologists, from the owners of the property and their agrologists.

MR. SKELLY: In public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, your leader has referred to Hansard, which is a public document.

We also hear from the agrologists involved, the Land Commission, as I mentioned, and from the people involved owning the land, and from the municipality and-or the regional district. It's not a decision that is made lightly nor is it a decision made in a darkened room under the "political atmosphere. " It is a decision that is made after presentation by all affected parties, considering that this is an appeal on somebody's land. They are at least given an opportunity to have that right of appeal, to have that opportunity to come before the Environment and Land Use Committee and make their presentation. And the Land Commission agrologists make their representation and then we attempt to make a fair and just decision.

In the case of one property that was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he is very critical of the fact that the decision was made, but he would not comment in this House in regard to the fact that this government, in dealing with that decision, determined to take "a second look" to ensure that we were giving fair justice not only to the people who owned the property but to the Agricultural Land Commission and the concept of the agricultural land reserve.

I sometimes feel obligated to comment, especially after the Leader of the Opposition speaks, that when he talks about being political, there is one gentleman in this gathering who, to my way of thinking, is the best I've ever seen — he can be very political and present himself very well, although his facts are quite often somewhat slanted. I might mention, because we are dealing with the agricultural land reserves, that in 1974 when the previous administration designated agricultural land in this province, there were 11,661,600 acres in the reserve. After some four or five years, the amount in the agricultural land reserve is 11,635,204. That is at the end of 1979. I don't have my calculator, nor can I do a quick calculation, but out of 11 million acres, about 26,000 acres have been removed.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure you're well aware, and so are members opposite well aware — that the broad brushstrokes that laid the agricultural land reserve in 1974 were just that. The Canadian Land Inventory maps were broad brushstrokes, and in many cases put gravel pits in agricultural land designation and had good agricultural land outside the designated prime land. Since that time we have been doing fine-tuning to properly identify agricultural land that should be in the reserve, and those areas that really shouldn't have been in the reserve in the first place are being excluded. In the main that is what's happened over the past several years. The members opposite also know — if they've looked in my estimate book yet — that we have $384,000 in my estimates this year to carry on that fine-tuning, which is one instalment out of, I believe, approximately $1.4 million over the next four years which has been allocated to fine-tune the agricultural land reserve.

The Leader of the Opposition talks in generalities and makes some comments in regard to political interference. I would just like to close by saying it is not political interference but giving the opportunity for an individual who owns the land to have the right of appeal — at least to have that court of appeal that he can approach. The member opposite also knows that before the amendment came in in 1977, I believe it was, the Agricultural Land Commission.... If two members of the commission signed the right of appeal it went to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The amendment allowed the minister to have the opportunity to grant or not to grant the right of appeal, should the owner of the property not get support from two members from the Land Commission to allow this appeal to proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the member for New Westminster, I must advise members that under this vote, while we may touch the minister's office, vote 18 specifically deals with the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, and if it is the intention of members to deal with the specifics of the ALR in vote 10, then it would be virtually impossible for the Chair to permit a repeat debate of the same matters under vote 18, which is also to come in this series. That is understood by members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to comment on your suggestion, in order to make comments on a particular area of a minister's obligations, a minister's responsibility, one has to be able to establish relationships with other aspects of his work. To deal with the ALR under vote 18 would place the opposition in a very restricted position. I'm sure that a Chairman with the great capacity that you have would see us being called to order on a number of occasions, just as we've been called to order on rather a flimsy suggestion a few moments ago.

I think probably what we're hearing now is a description of wheeling and dealing in the Fraser Valley. That's precisely what happened in the circumstance that we've been discussing. Let me tell you who is totally, completely and absolutely opposed to that kind of wheeling and dealing. They were worried about it and have been for a long, long time. Here are a group of people participating in a statement that came out in opposition to this whole question of a cabinet committee — the ELUC — appeal. These people are as follows: the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — I think they have a bit of a responsibility in this area and also some knowledge; the Consumers Association in B.C.; the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists; the B.C. Women's Institutes; the United Church; the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; the Planning Institute of B.C.; and, believe it or not, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. What did these people say? Well, in part — and I'd like to allude to this — they said:

"It is, therefore, with a great deal of concern that the organizations represented here this morning have viewed the events of recent months and weeks involv-

[ Page 2608 ]

ing the provincial government and exclusions from the agricultural land reserve. In our view there can no longer be any doubt that what we are witnessing is the demise of the process of farmland preservation in this province. It is our firm belief that this demise may be traced to an amendment that was introduced to the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1977, which gave the Minister of Environment and the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet the authority to overrule the decisions of the Land Commission and remove land from the agricultural land reserve. "

That is the key to what we're talking about. That is the key to this whole problem in the Fraser Valley, to the problem in the Salmon Arm district, and to many of those incidents which involved getting land out of the agricultural land reserve.

I recall the case in the Fraser Valley particularly, as I also had a look at the land. I went out there with the Leader of the Opposition and others and we were amazed at the similarity of the land that was right next door. As a matter of fact, it was identical — the contour of the land, etc. — and everybody knows it. But the one thing that I recall when we visited that area is the number of groups that spoke to us on November 16, 1979. There were the agrologists, farmers' institutes, consumers' associations and the farmland committee. Gary Runka himself and others spoke at that meeting. What I read between the lines was, I think, what has become public since, and that is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the member for Langley, who's such an expert on agricultural land, was doing a favour for Ainslie Lorretto. Who is Ainslie Lorretto? He was an executive person with the Gloucester Properties, who was also very active in the minister's campaign. He said he'd been in Langley 25 years and therefore knew the land well, and felt that the land should go to industry. We had people speaking to us that day — on November, 16 — who had hundreds of years of residence there. That meeting went from 10 in the morning until about 4:30 in the afternoon, and it never stopped.

The real concern in this province, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that they took this whole question of agricultural land appeals and placed it in an area where politicians make the decisions. That decision was made by a rump group of cabinet, even at that. Of course the government got a little bit embarrassed. The Premier made some statements which have taken it away from this particular aspect and made it a jurisdictional thing; I'm not going to deal with that. I do say that it should never have happened in the first place. We argued that when you place this kind of responsibility on cabinet members, there will be a tendency among some to bow to pressure. When we set up the Agricultural Land Commission we felt that it should be kept away from that area. Keep it out of the political arena and keep it in the area where people who are making the decisions are making them in the best interests of the long-term use of the land and not in the best interests — as we've seen here…to the long-term benefit of Ainslie Lorretto, a great friend of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They work together.

AN HON. MEMBER: Character assassination.

MR. COCKE: Character assassination, my foot!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you specialize in.

MR. COCKE: That's not what I specialize in.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly is.

MR. COCKE: I deal with the truth. If you can stand up here and argue this point, then do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have the protection of the House, and you assassinate anybody you can.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just in case the member forgot what I said, Ainslie Lorretto, who worked on the election committee of the Minister of Energy, and is a good friend of the Minister of Energy, made the whole thing look very bad.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about Cottonwood Corners, my friend?

MR. COCKE: What about Cottonwood Corners? Why don't you get up on your feet and talk about it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've got a sore foot.

MR. COCKE: I noticed that your foot is sore. We bring you great sympathy from the opposition.

The minister talks about fine-tuning and fair and just decisions. Then he turns around and says that the Leader of the Opposition was too general in his discussion. The Leader of the Opposition was quoting from a factual record, a transcript of a committee on which the minister sat. Yet he was too general. But then he went on to say himself that what they were interested in was fair and just decisions, fine-tuning of the agricultural land reserve. If that kind of fine-tuning is represented by the kind of decision that we saw — influenced by the Minister of Energy.... There's no question of that. The Minister of Energy said that that should be industrial land down in the heart of agricultural land. The fact that B.C. Hydro supported that.... Well, B.C. Hydro also supports the Site C dam, which will ruin countless acres of agricultural land in this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: How many?

MR. COCKE: Sixty-five hundred.

HON. MR. FRASER: Have you ever been there?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have, incidentally.

HON. MR. FRASER: You must have been lost.

MR. COCKE: The minister who can't find his way from his office to the House tells me that I must have been lost. Anyway, we're wishing you the best of luck, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: That minister found his way onto Gloucester Properties, you know.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and he was at the ELUC meeting, where his colleague the Minister of Energy influenced the rest of the committee to make a very bad move and move some very good land into industrial zoning.

[ Page 2609 ]

People from all over this province are saying: "For heaven's sake, get rid of this system of doing business in terms of holding and in terms of keeping agricultural land.'' The district of West Vancouver — what did they say? November 9, 1979:

"Whereas it is essential to the people of British Columbia that effective policies be followed for preservation of farmland, and whereas recent events centering on the removal of some Fraser Valley land from the agricultural land reserve create a perception that present policies and procedures in this regard are not effective, therefore be it resolved that the municipal council of West Vancouver call upon the provincial government to review and where necessary revise policies and procedures so that the vital objective of safeguarding farmland and its retention for agricultural purposes can be fully achieved. Copy of this motion to be circulated to all cabinet ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly and mayors of lower mainland municipalities."

Why is it that, from that embarrassing day to this, not a thing has been done — no change in the legislation? We have the same old gang doing the same things. Until one happens to be fortunate enough or lucky enough to trip over them. sometimes.... It's hard for the opposition and it's hard for people within a municipality to monitor everything that's going on. It should be part and parcel of the whole area.

When the agrologists and others wrote or wired all the members of the House, they were talking about further erosion of the provincial agricultural land base. This was the Federation of Agriculture and many others — the Institute of Agrologists and so on. They put forward three propositions:

" 1) that a chairman of widely recognized capability, stature and objectivity be immediately appointed to the Land Commission. "

AN HON. MEMBER: Done!

MR. COCKE: "Done!" the member says.

"2) that the present appeal process for exclusion from agricultural land reserves be amended to remove from the political arena the decision to allow or disallow appeals to go forward to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet;

"3) that until such time as the appeal process can be amended, the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet be required to make public their reasons behind any decision to exclude land from an agricultural land reserve."

Things haven't changed to the extent that they should have. Yes, the government has been embarrassed, but this government doesn't seem to mind being embarrassed. They seem to flourish and grow with a cloud over their head.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's right. We're moving ahead all the time.

MR. COCKE: It's no joke, despite the fact that the Minister of Agriculture seems to think it is. There have been far too many things: dirty tricks, thousand-dollar bills and all these questions. I think that this government, more than any other government, should be super-clean and put themselves at arm's length from any of these decisions. But they're not doing it. They continue the same old way, doing the same old things. We're just not going to sit back and leave a poor apparatus like this without having it thoroughly canvassed.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Member, when you've finally been schooled, when you've learned what you re doing here, then you will also have learned what we're doing here. The opposition is charged with the responsibility of criticizing government, and this government has given us the best opportunity that any opposition ever had. They're awful, and you're their supporters. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I would be ashamed of myself if I was one of their supporters, I'll tell you — wheeling and dealing government in every respect.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member who stood up in the House the other day and announced that he was stunned is proving over and over again that what he said then was right. It would appear that he will continue to be stunned as long as he's here.

MR. BRUMMET: Give the rest of my speech.

MR. COCKE: I'll leave that for you, Mr. Member. You stood up and said that you were stunned.

I hope that the minister will stand up in the House today and will announce to one and all that he is also dissatisfied with the method of appeal, with the whole setup that we have where politicians can turn around decisions made by people who should be well trained in the area of their responsibility. If the minister will do that, he'll come a long way in redeeming himself before his colleagues and before the opposition in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First, before recognizing the member for New Westminster, I advised that if it was the intention to carry out detailed examination of the Land Commission under vote 10, such an examination could not continue under vote 18.

Secondly, in regard to the sub judice matter, I might quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 118, section 335:

"Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."

In regard to the application of the sub judice rule to the debate in hand, I've listened to the submission of the Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader. While the sub judice rule has been strictly applied in this House, I note that in the case at hand there appears to be sufficient difference at this point between the debate and the subject of the court case that the rule ought not to be applied in this case.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 2610 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have a number of visitors from Skagit Valley College of Mount Vernon, Washington, led by Mr. Madison E. Morrell. I had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Morrell at a Doukhobor cultural festival a week or so ago. He has brought some 30 or 40 students to sit in the House today and see how we do the people's business in British Columbia. I would like everybody to bid them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I had certainly not intended to enter this debate, but when I listen to the Leader of the Opposition stand once again in this House and talk about the Land Commission and Bill 42, as it was when it was introduced in this Legislature, and talk in glowing terms about Bill 42, and how it was the intent of the socialists when they were in power to protect agricultural land, I am forced to rise and set this Legislature straight once again, Mr. Chairman. I want to remind all the members of the Legislature, those in the gallery and all the citizens of British Columbia, that when Bill 42 was originally introduced in this House, it was a bill which took away the inherent rights of every British Columbian to own land. You talk about dictatorship. You talk about confiscation of land. That was the bill that took away the inherent right of those who pioneered this country and made it possible for those socialists to come here and bring in policies that were not normal to the people of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that bill, when it was first introduced in this House, was complete dictatorship. It took away the rights of individual British Columbians to own land. The members on this side of the House and the majority of people in British Columbia want to save agricultural land for agriculture and to grow food, but that was not the intent of that.... I was almost going to say communist bill, and it almost was a communist bill because it completely usurped the rights of individual citizens with absolutely no recourse to the laws that existed. That's the type of bill they brought in. Had it not been for the opposition, as we were at that time, that bill would have passed in this Legislature. Make no mistake about it. Certainly you will find all supporters of this party in favour of preserving agricultural land for agricultural purposes. But the broad-brush application that the socialists put on agricultural land.... They had swamps, forests, boulder patches, and everything in the agricultural land reserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: And mountains.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, mountains and mines. A broad-brush approach to try and sell their policies. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that this government never has or never will be in favour of taking away the rights of individuals to own land. When they did finally come to their senses, because of the opposition that we put up while we were over there, when they brought in the new bill, you could hardly recognize it from the original because there were so many amendments.

That was one of the cruellest hoaxes on a free society ever brought in by any Legislature in Canada or any state in the union. I don't want the people of British Columbia to forget that no matter how much they can stand up today and say it was in the interest of preserving farmland, that original bill was not in the interest of preserving farmland; it was in the interest of doing away with the free ownership of land in British Columbia by individuals. That bill was straight out of the Waffle Manifesto. Make no mistake about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly we opposed it. But we were not opposed to the preservation of farmland. We were opposed to taking away the rights of individuals to own land. Had that bill gone forward in its original form, there wouldn't be one citizen of British Columbia who could not have come under its cruet, harsh, dictatorial powers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the original Bill 42 that they stand up today and brag about was confiscation of land without compensation. It was designation of land into any area that they wanted to designate land without normal justice. It usurped Canada's long-standing heritage of having individual citizens owning land. It was completely dictatorial. As I say, I didn't intend to rise in this debate, but I'm sick and tired of listening to the Leader of the Opposition come in here and tell us that we were against the preservation of farmland. We were not against the preservation of farmland, but we were for the rights of individuals. That's why we fought Bill 42, and that's why they changed it. They knew it was out of the Waffle Manifesto. They knew that the people of this great province would not stand idly by and see them bring in legislation which was foreign to their heritage.

MR. SKELLY: I would also like to add my words of welcome to the students of Skagit Valley College, and a little bit of a word of warning to them that the member who previously spoke was an exception that proves the rule that where there's smoke there's fire.

I would like to ask leave of the House, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my wife.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: My wife Alexandra and my daughter are in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce them and to note that my daughter was born in Calgary at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference about seven years ago. She has been involved in this process for many years and is familiar with the speaking style of the member who just spoke. Now that she's in grade 1 it's always amusing to her to come into the House to watch the ministers speak before she goes home and watches the world of Hanna-Barbera.

I'd also like to talk in general terms — because I know here we're speaking of the agricultural land reserve under the minister's office vote in general terms — about that appeal procedure that the previous members have been talking about as well. I'm referring, Mr. Chairman, to the appeal procedure that was brought in in 1977 and which allowed an appellant before the Land Commission who had his appeal rejected and who couldn't even persuade two members of the Land Commission that his case had enough merit to be considered before the Environment and Land Use Committee.... Even if he couldn't persuade two members of that Land Commission that his case had sufficient

[ Page 2611 ]

merit, all he had to do was go behind closed doors within 30 days to the appropriate minister and get leave to appeal to a committee of cabinet. It allowed — this is what we were concerned about and this is what we brought forward in debate on that bill — a political appeal system to develop, which is what we were concerned about. We don't mind having an appeal system. It's good to have an appeal system, and an appeal system was built into the act so that everybody who had a grievance against the Land Commission or against the criteria which they use to judge an appeal could always go farther, to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's like going back to the judge that convicted you. That's hard for you to understand.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not complaining about the fact that the act needs to be changed; I'm just complaining about the way, in 1977, that it was changed to allow a political appeal system. If the members opposite felt that an independent authority was needed to sit in judgment on what the Land Commission had previously decided, then they should have set up an independent authority as an appeal on those decisions of the Land Commission — not a political route into cabinet so that their friends could get land out of the reserve while the rest of the people in the province had to suffer under what the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) calls "that oppressive system that seized everybody's land and their rights in land."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You called it an oppressive system yourself.

MR. SKELLY: You called it an oppressive system.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one who's calling your own legislation an oppressive system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will call all members to order, and at this time I would like to....

Although I am going to allow the member for Alberni to respond to what has taken place earlier, our standing orders under Committee of Supply indicate that the necessity for legislation in matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I'm making that statement to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and also to the member standing. However, because the subject has been canvassed to some degree by the minister, the Chair will certainly allow the member for Alberni to comment on that. Perhaps after that we can get back to the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us now.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was simply discussing the appeal system as it exists now. Obviously the members opposite feel there's some defect in the system. In fact, the former Minister of Environment noted that the system should be changed, and he stated, after granting something like 40 leaves to appeal.... Without even considering the merits of those appeals he granted 40 of them almost on a blank-cheque basis. He recognized that the appeal system had been changed, and when the new minister came in he said: "No, that's okay, we don't have to do it anymore." He seemed to prefer the political appeal system even though almost every group in the province that had an interest in the protection of agricultural land held a joint press conference asking the minister to make the Land Commission more independent, asking the minister to remove the political avenue for appeals and asking the minister to give greater support to the principle of the Land Commission and the need to preserve agricultural land. Yet this minister doesn't seem to have come up with those necessary changes that would give us more confidence in the independence of the Land Commission and more confidence in the government's support for the preservation of agricultural land than we presently feel.

The minister mentioned that when the land reserves were originally established there were 11,661,000 acres in the land reserve. Then he said: "Between the time of the establishment of the reserves and today only 26,000 have been removed." But since the minister has the figures at hand, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask him about the quality of the land that was reserved, because he's entering upon the same logical fallacy that's been used by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) in talking about the land that's going to be taken out of the reserve in order to accommodate the Site C dam. Now he says that only 6,500 acres are going to be taken out of the reserve in the Peace River–Liard Regional District, and he says in the total regional district there are something like 3.4 million acres in the reserve; and he says in the total province there are something like 11.635 million acres in the reserve. But the fallacy in his argument is that some areas of land in the reserve are much more valuable, the range of crops that can be grown on that land is much greater, and the growing season on that land is much more favourable. All of the land in the agricultural reserve is not of the same quality and can't grow the same range of crops as other land in the reserve. So he's using a logical fallacy in order to convince his constituents that it is in their best interest to take that land out of the reserve.

I'm wondering if the minister is even paying attention, but I wonder if he will answer the following questions. Of the 26,000 acres that have been taken out of the reserve, how much has been in the Okanagan Valley, some of the prime fruit-growing areas of British Columbia? How much of that land has been taken out of the Saanich Peninsula and lower Vancouver Island, again some of the finest farmland in the province? How much of that land has been taken out of the agricultural land reserves in the Fraser Valley — and now, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about some of the finest agricultural land not just in the province of British Columbia but in the world. How much of that finest agricultural land has been taken out and lost to food production for the people of this province forever? I'd like the minister to answer that question. Because when the Social Credit members use the gross statistics — and they seem to use whichever statistics favour their arguments — then they tend to confuse the people. I'd like to know the specific statistics for land that has been taken out of the reserve and the quality of land that has been taken out.

Under this minister we've seen processing plant after processing plant shut down in the province. We've seen some sold out to the United States. It's the Social Credit tradition of 1952 to 1972 all over again, when we lost agricultural land at the rate of 20,000 acres a year, Mr. Chairman; when we would write to the government and say, "Do something to stop the erosion of agricultural land," and the Minister of Industrial Development said, "everybody on

[ Page 2612 ]

our side is against the loss of farmland, but they did nothing about it for 20 years. He said a lot about it, but they did nothing about it; for 20 years they did nothing. We would write to the government — this is before I was in office and was concerned about the loss of agricultural land. I have letters still from a Mr. Zacharias, who used to work for the Ministry of Agriculture. He said: "Oh, yes, we're losing thousands of acres in the Fraser Valley, we're losing thousands of acres in the Okanagan Valley, we're losing thousands of the most productive acres in British Columbia on lower Vancouver Island, but we're gaining thousands upon thousands of acres in the Peace River. We're pretty much in a stable state as far as agricultural land is concerned."

But, Mr. Chairman, the land that we were losing in the lower mainland and on the lower Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley, as I stated before, was some of the finest growing land in British Columbia, in Canada and in fact in the world, and we were doing a disservice globally to allow that land to slip away, out of food production. I would simply like to ask the minister about the quality of land we've been losing rather than in gross terms the areas we've been losing out of the agricultural land reserve; because in spite of what you may feel about Social Credit or what Social Credit may feel about quality, it's quality that counts.

Mr. Chairman, the whole agricultural regime throughout the world is changing — at least throughout North America — and the technology that we've enjoyed in agriculture is also changing throughout the world and throughout North America. Agriculture as a technology is one of the most totally energy-dependent technologies on the globe; it's well known that even in minimum terms we put sometimes three times as much energy into agriculture as we get out in food energy. We use energy in the tractors; we use energy in agricultural chemicals; we use energy-derived chemicals as fertilizers and pesticides; we use energy to store and to transport food — it's one of the most energy-intensive industries on the globe. We're going to have to change, Mr. Chairman, because the price of energy is going up dramatically. We cannot afford the same kind of energy inputs we've had into agriculture in the past. The consumers can't afford it. As the price of energy goes up, that energy price is reflected in the price of food, and the consumer simply can't afford that rise in food value.

We're going to have to do something about the way we handle agriculture in the province of B.C. and in North America. What are we going to do? If we take some of those energy inputs out, we're going to have to increase the growing site because we cannot continue to supplement those soils, using petroleum-derived chemicals. We're going to have to use our land a lot more effectively and probably use a lot more of it. In addition, we're not going to be able to transport food in the same way as we have before — to bring it up from California in energy-intensive refrigerated trucks. We're not going to be able to transport food over the long distances that we've transported it before. Remember that every hour that separates the time of picking any particular fruit or vegetable from the time it's delivered to the consumer's plate, you lose in nutritional value. Every mile, you lose in the nutritional value. If we are to have good, high-quality, nutritious food, we have to start growing more of it here, and we're going to have to use more of our land base here in British Columbia to support the food that our people are going to require. We're going to have to cut back on the energy we use in pesticides, in fertilizers and in the mechanization of agriculture.

There is going to have to be a dramatic change. It's not going to come slowly. The changes in energy pricing did not come slowly. We thought there was energy abundance in North America right up until 1973 and 1974 when the OPEC nations decided to chop it off and we were going to have to get a lot less and pay a lot more for it. The same thing is going to happen in agriculture, and we have to have policies in the Ministry of Agriculture that prepare us for the loss of those food sources. One of the primary policies is going to have to be the protection of that agricultural land reserve that is so critical to our food needs here in British Columbia.

The Socreds never have looked at it as agricultural land. They've always looked at it as private, flat, developable land that can be used for anything. I was at a planners' conference in Prince George — in your riding, Mr. Chairman — on the weekend and I was talking to a group of planners. Some government planners were up there as well. They said the problem with British Columbia is that 75 percent of the land is good for nothing and 25 percent of the land is good for everything. That's one of the conflicts that we as a government, and as a legislature, have to deal with here in the province of British Columbia. In agricultural terms, our problem is that 97 percent of the land is good for nothing and 3 percent of the land is good for everything. In that 3 percent of the land the Socreds would like to see us pour all the housing, all the industry, and allow developers to go full speed ahead in that 3 percent of the land and neglect the one thing that we are going to need most over the long term. That one thing is what you and I require to survive. It's food that we need desperately here in the province of British Columbia.

What's wrong is their short-term view of the world and their short-term view of our requirements and the requirements of our children. That's something that, through a constructive, educational opposition process like this, we're trying to direct at the member for North Peace River and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — a constructive form of opposition, a responsible form of opposition. We're trying to persuade those members of the folly of what they're doing and to persuade them that the agricultural land reserve in the province of British Columbia is one of the most important and valuable and rare resources that we have here. I would just like to urge that on the members opposite.

This is why the appeal system is so critical. This is why the appeal system cannot be handled by politicians behind the closed doors of cabinet. When I see what's happening in the south delta of the Fraser River, when I see the value of the land that's going under the developers' pavement, under housing and under industry.... Industry can locate almost anywhere. Housing can locate almost anywhere. Highways can be located — granted, at some cost — almost anywhere. But it is extremely hard to find alternate growing land when we've already lost the best land in this province. I would like to hear a promise from that Minister of Agriculture. We heard a promise before from the former Minister of Environment, who had jurisdiction over the Land Commission, that it needed to be changed, that the appeal system needed to be changed, that it had to be more independent in order to protect the farmland.

Now that resolve to make the commission more independent seems to have drifted away and now this minister, who is one of the weakest links in the cabinet, seems to want to

[ Page 2613 ]

drift back to the way it was before, when he could handle a few political appeals here and there. That's not what we want in this province, because we want to protect that agricultural land reserve. I'd like to suggest to the minister that the Land Commission, rather than being a group of political appointees, be selected from an all-party committee of the Legislature. Democratize the process and bring it back into the Legislature, as you did with the ombudsman, and we supported you. We supported you on the auditor-general. Let's consider agricultural land as important as the bottom line in our ledgers, and as important as the way that the civil service deals with the community. Let's consider agricultural land even more important, because it's a resource that belongs not just to us but to our children. Let's appoint that Land Commission through an all-party committee of the House. You don't have to change the legislation; just pass a motion. Simply refer the whole matter to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

You do have to change the legislation in one way, though, Mr. Chairman. You have to eliminate that political appeal system that has brought so much discredit on the government, the minister personally and the previous minister responsible for environment, who was also responsible for the Land Commission when he was Minister of Environment.

In closing, I'd just like to mention one last thing about Gloucester Properties. In reconsidering the decision to take Gloucester Properties out of the agricultural land reserve, I suspect the Premier called for a second look. But he called for a second look under the wrong section of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, knowing that it was the wrong section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think in view of the decision read by the Chair, you are at this point clearly violating the sub judice rule.

MR. SKELLY: No. The minister said that references were not violating the sub judice rule if they do not deal with issues being dealt with in court, Mr. Chairman. I am not dealing with the issue that's being dealt with in the court at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue involves jurisdiction of the cabinet.

MR. SKELLY: No. A ruling has already been made on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is discussing the jurisdiction which is in dispute. It is the ruling of the Chair that if the member would continue on the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us, it would be greatly appreciated. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that I was referring in passing to a decision made by the court.

I'll go on to what the minister's jurisdiction is now and what the minister could do under section 10(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, under that section and of their own initiative, can place any land within the agricultural land reserve. That was the section we passed initially in order to create the reserves through cabinet in the first place. After the regional districts and municipalities had advised the government, then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could create the agricultural land reserve of its own initiative. The minister, if he was really serious about putting the Gloucester Properties land back into the agricultural land reserve and if this government were to be really serious at the cabinet meeting on Thursday, under section 10(3) they could make a decision that would result in that property going back into the agricultural land reserve and remove the problems we now face through the court proceedings. That is only if they were really serious about getting that land back into the reserve, but I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that what we're seeing is a bit of bafflegab going on by the government. "Soft-pedal the issue. Let the courts handle parts of it. Try to deal with it under the wrong section of the act. Try to set up a smokescreen for the public, and then slowly the people will lose interest in it and the land will be lost to the agricultural land reserve." If they were really serious about it, that could be done at a special cabinet meeting right after this session. Enough of the cabinet is out of the House right now that it could be done right now.

Read the Land Commission Act, Mr. Chairman, and you will find that if the government was really serious about putting Gloucester Properties' application back into the agricultural reserve, they could do it right this minute. But they're not serious. By putting it back in the reserve it doesn't deny Gloucester the right to go through the whole appeal procedure again. No hearings are denied; no rights are denied; no appeals are denied. Gloucester could go through the whole process again. But I suspect — I know, Mr. Chairman — that this government is not serious about putting that land back in the reserve no matter how much it may try to baffle the public by using inappropriate sections of the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to recognizing the member for Dewdney, I will once again remind all members of the House that the Chair did allow some latitude to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and a reciprocal amount of latitude to the member for Alberni in discussion of legislation during Committee of Supply. At this point the Chair must once again inform all hon. members that during Committee of Supply legislation or the necessity for legislation cannot be discussed. Rather, we are to address ourselves to the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I stand in my place to discuss and bring to the minister's attention matters concerning farmers' market.... But before I do that — and I'll be very brief — I cannot help but remark on the statements made by the hon. member for Rossland-Trail. Such an impassioned plea for the food we eat and the food we need.... Of course, there is nothing extra special about that. We all need food and we all know that, but why the impassioned plea? He talked about the finest land in British Columbia — the finest land this government takes away. There must always be an adjustment in land, where there are 336,000 square miles of land; there must be adjustments made continuously in a place this size.

But I want to tell him, talking about the finest land: who was it, may I ask, that took away really the finest land — Tilbury Island — for industry, right after they had declared their land reserve?

The problem, and the Leader of the Opposition, who he said would change the Land Act now.... Well, of course,

[ Page 2614 ]

nobody would change the Land Act; it is a fact that it was done. But what that act did do was destroy a plan of the previous government....

Mr. Chairman, you're looking at me with a sort of wistful look. Have you something to say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just addressed the House, and I thought I made it clear that we really don't have the latitude in Committee of Supply to discuss legislation, either future or past.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I'm discussing now not the Land Act per se, but the fact that the members have brought this matter up and I have to reply to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe a good reciprocal debate with much latitude has been allowed in the House, but now it would be the wish of the committee to return to the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I bring up the point that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who would change the Land Act now.... That's a fair question.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to defend the member for Dewdney and his right to discuss past legislation. The minister is responsible for past legislation, and that's really the responsibility of that minister, to properly care for and nurture that legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your comment and your point of order. However, I will read from May's seventeenth edition. It talks about relevancy in Committee of Supply and it states these are standing orders. "The administrative action of a department is open to debate. But the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." Those are our orders, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: I certainly agree with May, and who wouldn't? But we're not talking about future legislation. We're talking about a minister's responsibility around legislation that gives him his reason for being — his raison d'être.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I find it difficult to discuss agriculture and the reduction of land for food without mentioning the Land Act. It seems impossible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member continues, and in order. However, the necessity for legislation was overheard by the Chair, and it was at that point that I intervened. The member continues on vote 10.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would be most happy. I tremble here at the might of the Chair. Where do you go from here? If you wish to hold it that tightly, yes, indeed, I'd be delighted. These estimates could be finished very quickly. But if you wish to give a little latitude, that's fine. Whatever you say is fine with me.

But I want to say this: our previous government had a far better system than the Land Act. For example, the municipality of Pitt Meadows had already designated its agricultural land and developable land; and the whole of the province could have been done that way. But down came the NDP with the Land Act. It's as if a doctor would say to me, "You must take this medicine three times a day for one month." But I think it's so good I take it all in one day. I would be destroyed. That's exactly what happened to that party, with their Land Act and acts of a similar kind. It wasn't the purpose of the Land Act, but it was too fast and too much at one time. The Land Act has a place in our system, yes, but it was the wrong way to go. That's what I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman. But I don't want to labour the point.

I've come today to speak to the Minister of Agriculture about something very important. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is within the policy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture; if it is not, just say to me, "You're off base," and I'll sit down. But I come to speak to him about farmers' markets. I know that you're listening there very attentively. I know that when you say to me, "You can't speak any more on the subject," I must sit down. But the reason that you're telling me is because you don't want to belabour these estimates too long. I admire your position, and I'm thankful for what you're saying. But I will continue.

Mr. Chairman, have you something more to say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is here only to hear debate about the estimates before us; it's that simple. It's in our rules of order. It's not here to hurry debate or anything else, but to in fact hear debate on the administrative actions of the minister.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's correct. But I want to speak to the minister about farmers' markets…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

MR. MUSSALLEM: …and I wish not to belabour the point. I wish to tell him what I think. And I may not be right, but I have the right to say what I think. That's the responsibility of the member for Dewdney.

MR. COCKE: Give it to them, George!

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, I'm not giving it to them. I think he's doing a tough job. And I think it's very hard being Chairman. I've sat in that chair many times. I know some people I could mention cause a great deal of eruption around here for the fun of it. Well, I'm serious in what I'm saying.

There is not sufficient latitude given to the establishment of a farmers' market in various municipalities. There's one friend and a good citizen of Pitt Meadows who wants to establish a farmers' market. He finds it absolutely impossible under the regulations that exist. Now if the farmers' market could be established to sell farm products and any products of the farm — whether it be the handiwork of the farm or the products of the farm — they should be allowed to do so, and they should be allowed to do so on agricultural land. But we have tied that farmer's market up so tight that it cannot be done. I want to appeal to the minister to change the act to make the regulations sufficient that a man who wishes to take a risk in establishing a farmers' market for the sale of the products of the farm, the handiwork of the farm, and such things as that....

There are many people with skills who can sell articles, but they can't sell them to anybody. How about a 4-H Club with five acres of land? Or a smallholder? Where's he going

[ Page 2615 ]

to sell his product? To the marketing board? Well, that's just ridiculous. We just have to have a possibility, if we have land in the land reserve — five acres or ten acres — that they can produce a little of their product and find a place to sell it. The only place to sell it is a farmers' market within the area.

I'm just a little bit displeased, not with the attitude of the minister particularly, but with the regulations that hamstring people who are willing to risk their money in establishing a farmers' market. But there is no way they can do it under present regulations. There's no way they can do it, and for this reason. Yes, you can have a farmers' market and you can have a farm-gate market. Well, that's no good at all if you're one mile off the road.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Certainly you can have one in the city. Of course you can have one in the city. But what about a person who wants to establish a farmers' market five miles, ten miles out of the city? If they're willing to risk their money, they should have the right to try. They shouldn't be entirely tied down just to selling the green products of the farm. They should sell whatever they can get there to sell — not hardware; but if a farmer can make a product, let him sell it; if a farm wife wants to crochet, let her sell it.

It's all right for you to laugh; it's mighty serious business. It's fine for you to think it's funny, but I don't think it's one bit funny. I think it's about time we recognized the responsibility of your department to see these people have the right to sell their product. The five-acre man cannot sell his product. The 4-H Club people cannot sell their product. They can play around with a few sheep but there's no place to sell their product. I'm telling you, you've got to change that. That is very important. For four years I've struggled....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign! [Laughter.]

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's all right. They think it's funny, Mr. Minister, but I don't think it's one bit funny. I think it's serious. These people want to sell their product and can sell their product, if they have a marketable place to sell it. I've pleaded; I've gone to the Land Commission; I've gone to the minister; I've gone almost everywhere, and everywhere it's negative. I find even the municipality objects. It's not a desirable area. We've got to move and leave openings for people to be able to sell their products. Until something is sold, nothing happens. There is so much to be sold, so much of the farm produce going to waste because there is no market for it. I say to the minister that it is time to stop these delaying tactics. Wherever the problem is, whether it's in the Land Commission, the office of the minister, or wherever, that's got to be changed. I have to put up a strong case or there's no case to put up, except to say this: what about the people with five or ten acres? What about the people who grow a few cabbages or raise a few sheep? What about the lady on the farm who can crochet? Where can they sell their goods? They could do that if they had an opening. I know you can go into the city and sell it, but I'm not talking about the city; I'm talking about the municipality of Pitt Meadows or Maple Ridge or any municipality or any man who has the fortitude to put his dollars on the line and say: "I can make this thing go." There should be no bureaucrat who should be able to stand in his way. That is what is happening at this time. I think it's time we had a change.

I appeal to the minister. He knows what I'm after. I've spoken to him many times. That's got to be changed. We're meddling too much in the people's private affairs. We're talking about private enterprise; let's have private enterprise. Let's not monkey with this thing; it's gone too far.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wanted to respond somewhat in regard to the Agricultural Land Commission and the comments that were made. Dealing with the procedure that is followed by people who wish to appeal to the minister or to be heard in front of the Environment and Land Use Committee, as all members know, the Environment and Land Use Committee, ELUC, has been there for a number of years. During the NDP administration it was there. If I recall, members of the cabinet sat on that Environment and Land Use Committee. Is that correct, former Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's correct, but you're beside the point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: So just for the record, the Environment and Land Use Committee is a "political" committee. Members of the cabinet sat in judgment over appeals of the Agricultural Land Commission decisions. That is what was done before there was any change in the legislation. So the political routine that the opposition talks about was there through their administration as well as ours. The only difference was that the amendment to the act changed the routine, so that when you applied to the Land Commission and were turned down, you had one further step than under the old act, which was: if you were turned down by the Land Commission, you went back and got the signatures of two commissioners, which allowed you to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. That was like going back to the judge who convicted you and saying, "Will you give me the right of appeal?" The act was changed to say that you could still do that — get two signatures from the commissioners. Failing that, you could apply within 30 days to the minister for the right of appeal. That is the only change. The decision of the Environment and Land Use Committee was made under your administration — no different under our administration. The only thing that was different is that at least we gave the individual the opportunity to apply to the minister for the right of appeal, as opposed to going back to the judge who convicted him and asking for that right of appeal. There is a little bit of difference, Mr. Member.

We just want to point out to the members opposite, in regard to between April 1978 and March 1979, by regional district, in regard to leave to appeal to the minister....

Because the members opposite would leave you to believe that there is a tremendous movement of applications or rights of appeal to go to the minister because this is all political and all our ''friends" are going to get their land out. I just want you to know that in the last year, between 1978 and 1979, there were 22 requests to the minister for the right of appeal. Of those, 4 were refused and 12 were granted. Other than those, there were 9 that were heard by ELUC and out of the 9, 6 were allowed by ELUC, 2 were refused and one decision hasn't been made as of the date of this report.

When you look at the comments that are made across the House in regard to the tremendous abuse, as they like you to believe, of the appeal procedure, you can see how many get

[ Page 2616 ]

to the minister. If I can find it here, the requests for appeal to the commission — and that's the two signatures.... In the years 1978-79 there were 39 requests. There were 2 approved, 28 refused and 8 reconsidered, and one had not been dealt with as of that time. So out of the 39, the Land Commission itself reconsidered 8; that is, they looked at their decision and reconsidered it. The numbers that go through to the minister for the leave to appeal are very small in regard to the total amount of applications for exclusion to the commission. I just can't put my hand on it here, Mr. Chairman; I wish I could find it quickly, because I could give an indication as to how many actual applications go into the Land Commission per year. Maybe during the rest of the debate by the opposition I'll be able to find those figures.

The point I wanted to make was the small number that reached the minister's desk for leave to appeal, the smaller number that get beyond the minister to the Environment and Land Use Committee, and the smaller number that get granted by the Environment and Land Use Committee — very small, in relationship to the number of applications made to the Land Commission and the number of applications made to the minister for appeal. Many of those, for the members opposite and for the record, have endorsement of the regional district or the municipality. In many cases those are turned down.

Mr. Chairman, just to move on to the farmers' market that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) raised: first of all, any farmer can set up a roadside stand and sell his own produce, as I think the member for Dewdney knows. The question that the member raises — and I can understand some of his frustration over the years — is: why can't an individual set up a farmers' market? One of the problems with regard to a farmers' market is that if they are purchasing produce not from their home farmland, if they're purchasing it from another farmer, basically under the marketing board system they have to go via the marketing board to purchase it. That is done by any wholesaler; he buys from the marketing board. That way the commercial farmers first of all can grow the volume of crops required and then they can process them through their co-op and through the marketing board, and the marketing board, of course, can sell them to the wholesaler. Where you and I have some difficulty is where somebody decides to set up not really a farmers' market but a commercial operation where they are in effect displacing product from the marketplace; they're just another retail outlet under the guise of a farmers' market. In many cases they are offering, you might say, cash, or they're purchasing agricultural crops without going through the marketing board system, and in effect injuring the commercial farmer to a great extent because they're displacing his product from the marketplace.

So I have no objection to the roadside stand, and I have no objection to the farmers' market concept. However, I think they have to recognize that they have to work within the system and can't have any special consideration, because if they do we aren't resolving any problems; we are creating more problems. We rely on those commercial farmers being there every year, and we rely on the cooperative to have the cold-storage facilities and the packing and grading facilities to ensure that the consumer gets a good product, good quality, properly sized, etc. If you want to circumvent that system that's been put into place and I think has worked very well to ensure that the consumer has good value for his dollar — if you just said anybody can set up a "farmers' market" — you'd cause more problems that you would resolve.

I know the member for Dewdney feels quite strongly about this. All I'm saying is that there are farmer's markets in existence. I believe Courtenay has a farmer's market that operates very well; a large volume of produce goes through it. There are other farmers' markets throughout the province which work very well. If they want to purchase product, they can purchase it from the various packing houses through the marketing board system and provide that good-quality product to the consumer.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: In view of the fact that the member for Dewdney is going to fight on behalf of women who crochet, I will defer to the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, that minister had the wrong idea entirely about the farmers' market that I'm supporting. It's not a farmer's market where the owner of the market brings in produce and sells it; it is where a farmers' market has available maybe 50 stalls, maybe 100 stalls, that any farmer could rent and sell his produce from. That's what I'm speaking of — the farmer himself selling his own product or anybody selling his own product. Not a large operation operated by one person, but there may be 100 retailers there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that there is no problem with what you say. As a matter of fact, in my hometown in Penticton there is a farmers' market; and the owner of the building has converted it into a farmers' market and rents stalls out for those ladies who like to crochet, for people who bring their produce in. They have their own booth and they can sell in that way. That's a commercial operation; the man is a landlord and rents out the stalls.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just in addition to the member for Dewdney, there are actually a couple of farmers' markets which are owned by municipalities. The city of New Westminster, I understand, owns and runs a farmers' market and, I gather, so does the municipality of Duncan.

However, I just wanted to respond to the minister's statistics about the appeals to the minister, the ones that were rejected by the Land Commission. I think that in fact the statistics support the argument that the Land Commission was doing and probably still is doing a very effective job, which is the reason why so few direct appeals went to the minister's desk. The quarrel that we have and the opposition that we have to this whole process is that once it gets to the minister's desk, the decision is based strictly on politics at that point. The decision made by the minister about whether to allow the appeal or not had nothing to do with the agricultural value of the land, whether it actually was class A, first class, second class or anything. At that point we were dealing with straight political decisions, and what we're saying in opposition is that agricultural land is too important to be dealt with by straight political decision-making, and that is our opposition to it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You did it when you were in office.

MS. BROWN: It is not possible, Mr. Minister, through

[ Page 2617 ]

you, Mr. Chairman, to convince us that the minister is more knowledgeable about the value of land for growing food than the Land Commission. The members of the Land Commission are more knowledgeable, and they're also more impartial and more unbiased. Their responsibility is to decide whether the land is arable or not. Having made that decision, for the minister to reverse that decision.... It can be reversed on one basis and one basis only. Certainly when the present Minister of Health was the minister responsible, as the member for Vancouver East pointed out, he handed out these reversals like popcorn from a popcorn stand. He was reversing every decision as soon as it came across his desk. He made a political decision and reversed the decision of the Land Commission, and that is precisely what we're opposed to.

I think the basis of that, Mr. Chairman, is really a distorted perception about the value of agricultural land, a lack of understanding and appreciation for the value of agricultural land. The minister of small business and inconsequential things, when he was speaking earlier, said his government is committed to preserving agricultural land. But he never was able to back that statement up with any examples, because in fact all of the examples showed that the very opposite was happening, that during the tenure of this government land was being released from the agricultural land reserve at an incredible rate. And it was not being released to be used in terms of the growing of food or in some kind of potentially productive way for the people of British Columbia; it was being used in personal and political kinds of ways. As the hon. member speaking before said, of course there were a lot of promises and a lot of statements made, but in terms of what actually happened, the examples don't bear it out.

I think a part of the problem is that we're dealing with the tunnel vision of that government, a government that has absolutely no experience or understanding about anything that's happening within the narrow confines of either their own constituency or certainly within this province. They haven't looked at other parts of the world; they don't really understand or appreciate the importance of agricultural land in terms of feeding people. If they were to take the opportunity to visit other parts of the world and see how they treat their agricultural land, they probably would have a better appreciation and a better sense of the value of agricultural land and would stop treating it as a commodity that is just to be bought and sold in terms of profit. You just buy it and sell it. You just speculate in it, play around with it. The only value it has to that government over there is as a way of making money, and that is not the main value of agricultural land.

You travel to Italy, to Rome, and you see that they never allow even their train tracks to go across their arable land. Those are raised so it is possible for the farms to continue unbroken underneath their train tracks. They realize it is more important that that land grow whatever food is necessary for their people to use rather than have tracks running across it. Yet we have here, in British Columbia, the government making a decision, which the Minister of Agriculture is endorsing and doing absolutely nothing about, to run highways straight through prime agricultural land, as is happening in Burnaby at this time where, in cahoots with and with the support of the municipality, 20 acres of some of the most perfect and richest agricultural land in the lower mainland was allowed to be turned into Marine Way so that it could hook up with Annacis crossing, which is going to be built to ensure that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) runs again, because he threatened that unless that Annacis crossing was built he was going to be resigning his seat.

Go to some of the Third World countries and look at the kind of land that those countries are growing food on. Even the designation about what is grade 3 and grade 4 and grade 5 land, even the designation about what is not good arable land in British Columbia, is considered rich land in other parts of the world. In fact what we should be doing is not designating land in terms of our needs today, but certainly in terms of our needs in the future. If that were so, a lot more of the land in British Columbia would be seen as being valuable land in terms of growing food. We've got all the technology here for irrigation, far superior to other parts of the world. Yet you take a trip to any of the Caribbean Islands, or even go to some of the more remote parts of Nigeria and other countries in Africa, or even to the Scandinavian countries, and you see the kinds of lands with stones and rocks that we turn our noses up at in this country and say is not arable land that they are rescuing, that they are using to grow food on because that is all the land they have. We are absolutely profligate with land in this province. We have no respect for it.

When the GVRD and municipalities have to appeal to the government to return land to agricultural use. that at least is an indication that even some of the other levels of government are beginning to understand how profligate that government is in terms of its lack of respect for the very valuable land we have. The GVRD have appealed to them to return 4,000 acres in Delta, to return it to be covered as agricultural land, to return it to the land reserve. No one knows what response is going to come to this request, but one can only assume that at the speed with which they are releasing things like the Gloucester Properties and saying that it is not good arable land and it is not fit for growing food on, the chances are they will turn down that kind of request.

Mr. Chairman, what is the end result of this? We have a minister who is responsible for the development of agriculture in this province, and quite rightly part of that has to be the use of agricultural land. He should be the first person to recognize what happens to a province once all of its good agricultural land has been used, has been blacktopped, has been built over, and has been used for other things. What happens is that we are then forced as a province to become dependent upon other parts of the world for our food. We are at the mercy of other parts of the world for our food. It is already happening in terms of importing food from as far away as Mexico — food that we can grow here: tomatoes, which we can grow here. We have so abused our arable land that we are importing large amounts of food from other parts of the world. We are becoming totally dependent on it, with the result that we have no control over the cost. We are talking about the inflationary cost of food, and we can do absolutely nothing about it because the food that people are being forced to buy in the supermarkets is not grown here, to a large extent. It comes in from other parts of the continent, and it comes in from other parts of the world, and we have to pay the price that the seller is asking for it.

I think that enough cannot be said about the importance of taking a second look. I know we're not supposed to look at legislation, but certainly taking a second look at the way in which that government — certainly under the previous minister, who was responsible for the Land Commission, and under the present minister.... When you look at the kinds of statistics.... The United Church and a group of

[ Page 2618 ]

churches in North America prepared a statement on hunger in the world that tells us that Canada, the United States and Australia are the only three countries left in the world that can really be referred to as the bread-basket of the world, that we can grow enough food here not just to feed ourselves but to a large extent to feed the rest of the world too. We also know the statistic that 97 percent of the land in British Columbia is not good arable land. As I said before, I question that statistic myself because I believe that a lot of the land which we say is not good arable land — I have seen equivalent quality land in other parts of the world with food growing on it — is good arable land, and if that was all the land we had, we would use it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mountains?

MS. BROWN: Mountain country is good for growing some things. Some things grow very well on mountains. A lot of the coffee that we import into this country is grown on the sides of mountains. A lot of things grow on mountains. There are all sorts of root crops that grow in other parts of the world that have to grow on mountains. We like to brag about how really superior we are in terms of our agricultural intelligence, but there's a lot we can learn from other parts of the world which are not blessed with land quite as rich as the land that we have here.

I think one of the first responsibilities of that minister should be to get out of his riding and out of the province and go and look at some of the quality of the land that other parts of the world are using to grow food. Go to Sweden or Norway, look at those other parts of the world where the climate is even colder than this; the land is worse than this, and they are growing food on some of that kind of land. So having said that, it is absolutely ludicrous to admit that all that we are willing to grow food on is 3 percent and then turn around and release even that 3 percent for industrial development and supermarkets and housing. That is not just shortsighted. It is downright stupid; that's what it is. Of course we're not going to be around to suffer from the kinds of decisions being made by this government. It's our children and their children and our grandchildren and their grandchildren who are going to be the ones who are going to reap the results of the very bad decisions made by this government.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, we are one of the last three countries in the world that can be looked to in terms of growing and supplying enough food not just for our own needs but for other parts of the world too. We've got to take some responsibility for that. After all, we all live on this globe together. We have to share it and we have to recognize that we can't just develop everything for our own use and our own responsibility. When we blacktop, in many instances our arable land, we are depriving not just ourselves but people in other countries of the world too who would be willing to purchase the food which we grow and who need it. When you read the kinds of statistics on hunger in the world, you recognize how really criminal it is to have good arable land and turn around and blacktop it or allow industrial growth on it. When you read that there are 70 million seriously malnourished and chronically hungry children in this world, you begin to realize that it is no longer possible for us to make decisions about our arable land based on whether we need it or not. We can't do that. Because there is just not that much land around that's fit for growing food. What there is should be treated with the same respect that we treat oil and gas and all those other kinds of resources that are in short supply. Good arable land is in short supply too. Any Minister of Agriculture who doesn't recognize that is not doing a proper job and has to be called to task about that.

The B.C. Institute of Agrologists, in presenting a brief on this, stated: "Experience has taught us, as many others who are in similar situations, that without conscious deliberate action, agricultural land will disappear." That's all that we are saying to the minister — that it can't be left to some sort of haphazard development. There has to be conscious deliberate action on the part of that government to stop the erosion of agricultural land in this province, not just on our own behalf but because, in fact, we are husbanding and nurturing that agricultural land on behalf of other people as well.

Mr. Chairman, at their annual meeting in February of this year, the delegates to the B.C. Fruit Growers Association approved a resolution asking the government to ban the use of agricultural land for any purpose whatsoever, except for the growing of food. So we hear it from the churches, as I've pointed out, from the point of view of recognizing their global responsibility to all people, not just to a constituency with its boundaries here. We hear it from the agrologists, who are supposed to be the experts on this, and we hear it from the B.C. fruit growers, who are saying: "It should not be released for any other, purpose whatsoever. Agricultural land should be used for agriculture and absolutely nothing else."

In the short term, everyone can conjure up an idea about why this good agricultural land should be used for something else. In Burnaby, in the short term, the municipality came up with the idea that the new Marine Way must go through. "We need this new fast route to get trucks, buses and cars around the periphery." The government says: "We have to hook into the Annacis crossing." So the decision was made, and was supported by the municipality, to release 20 acres of some of the richest and most valuable land in the lower mainland to build a road — to put a road across it and cut a road right through farms which for the last 60 years have been supplying multiple crops to the people of the area. So the decision is made now. It's more important to run that freeway straight through the farms.

In the long term — and I don't know why I speak to that government about the long term, because there isn't going to be any long term for that government — the reality of the situation is that there is never any justification for using agricultural land for anything else. The previous minister, responsible for releasing so much of that land from the reserve, sits in his seat waiting to take his turn in this debate to justify his irresponsible action, notwithstanding that there is never any justification for releasing agricultural land out of that reserve to be used for anything else — never!

Mr. Chairman, I promised my colleague I wouldn't be very long…

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, your five minutes are up.

MS. BROWN: My five minutes are up.

...but I want to tell you a little about the Big Bend area of the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency, because it's the only part of Burnaby that still has any really good agricultural land, and it's really superior agricultural land. The fact is that it's an area of about 675 acres, which, I guess, is about the same amount that's being released for Gloucester Properties.

[ Page 2619 ]

It's mostly vegetable farms farmed by the Chinese, and they have been settled and working these farms for 60 years or more. There are now some instances of two generations, and even some third-generation families are in that area. In fact, it produces a multiple crop, because not only are they using the agricultural land itself, but there's a massive hothouse farming industry on the property as well. The vegetables are grown all year round in the greenhouse, hothouse or whatever. You can get good fresh vegetables at a reasonable price. This has been going on for the last 60 years, and the land is very rich. It has a bit of drainage problem, but of course, instead of efforts being made to improve the drainage problem, once it runs into any drainage problem, that land is then released and it is said that we now need to use it for industrial growth.

That is the area, of course, where the decision was made to run Marine Way right through 20 acres of some of those farms. They negotiated with the Land Commission, of course, and the municipality said, in asking to get the land out of the commission, that there would be a fence around it. I'm not sure what fencing is supposed to do.

Anyway, there is an elementary school right in the same, neighbourhood and the teacher asked the children to write an essay on the theme "Happiness Is." There were two topics that showed up nine out of ten times. Those students said, "Happiness is working in the garden and making things grow," and, "Happiness is the quiet of working in the fields and hearing the birds." Of course, that's not going to happen anymore. We're going to have big trucks going by there, hooked into the Annacis crossing so that the member for Delta can decide to run again. They are now complaining that the dust from the industrial area is falling on their leaf vegetables. They are being forced, because the drainage problem isn't being attended to, to sell some of their land. As I said before, as soon as it becomes available, the municipality immediately rezones it industrial and more good, rich soil which can be used to grow food on is lost to the lower mainland area.

I want to support, first of all, the member for Alberni's (Mr. Skelly's) recommendation about the all-party committee, to take the politics out of agricultural land. If there is one issue that should not be involved in politics, if there is one area where the final decision should never, ever come to the desk of people like the previous minister responsible for agricultural land and the present one, it has to be agricultural land.

Everyone suffers from the decisions made by that previous minister and everyone is going to suffer from the Gloucester Properties, which I understand.... There have been great debates about what is sub judice and what is not sub judice. I am not, I gather, permitted to speak about the fact that I did visit the properties myself and that I did.... Certainly in my perception of agricultural land, in all the parts of the world.... I forgot to mention Australia and the things that they're growing on that really arid, dry, grungy dirt that they have down there. It made Gloucester Properties look like a delta. However, I am not going to discuss Gloucester Properties, because I know it's sub judice.

MR. BARBER: It's not sub judice.

MS. BROWN: It's not subjudice? Okay, so I will discuss Gloucester Properties. But I won't. My five minutes are up.

I would like to support the recommendation for an all-party committee to be the only court of appeal to which the people who are turned down by the Land Commission can go. I think that's the only way to deal with it. It cannot be left at the discretion of either one minister or another, because this is much too important an issue. It is much too vital to the future of too many people for it ever to rest on the decision of one person or another.

HON. MR. MAIR: I will be very brief, but I think that the record ought to be set straight, and I intend to set it straight in a couple of minutes.

It seems to me that two or three members opposite have said today words to the effect that when I was Minister of Environment I was allowing appeals, I think, like handing out popcorn in theatres and things of that nature. I think we ought to make it very clear for the record that I as Minister of Environment, and the present Minister of Agriculture as Minister of Agriculture, don't allow any appeals at all. I allowed none at all in my own right. The obligation conferred upon me under the act, the one that is now conferred upon my colleague, was to decide whether or not people would be allowed to have an appeal heard, a vastly different proposition. The duty that I had to perform was to decide whether or not a person who felt aggrieved by a decision should be allowed to appeal to ELUC or to cabinet. That is quite a different thing than allowing an appeal.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and to tell the members of this chamber the very simple rule by which I guided myself. You may quarrel with it, you may say it's wrong and you would have done it differently, but at least you ought to know what I did. I came to the conclusion, after reading the act and assessing my obligations and my duty, that unless the appeal was on the face of it vexatious and frivolous — in other words, unless the person was simply taking the appeal in the hopes that one more chance would do it — I felt he was entitled to have his case heard under the act. If he wasn't entitled to have his case heard under the act, then there really was no reason to give me the privilege and the obligation to decide whether or not he could appeal.

I will confess, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the members opposite, that I certainly felt that if the act gave the right of appeal — whether that' s right or wrong is for this chamber to decide, not for me — then I had no right to deny it simply because I felt he wouldn't win. My only obligation was to decide whether or not, on the face of it, he was entitled to have his case heard by ELUC or cabinet, as the case may be. Perhaps that's a good law; perhaps it's a bad law. All I know is the law requires me to obey the law and that's precisely what I did and those are the standards by which I judge myself.

So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this is all I'm going to say on the matter. It is not correct — and I'm sure the members opposite did not mean to imply this — to say that I allowed appeals, because I did not. It was not my job. It was to allow people to appeal or not so allow; similarly with the present minister.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if I may have leave to make an introduction....

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to demonstrate to the House

[ Page 2620 ]

living proof, Mr. Chairman, that great things come out of New Westminster. I'm not talking about myself at this point, but the fact that my brother Ray Skelly, Member of Parliament for Comox–Powell River, is in the gallery. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) left the House, because I wanted to reply to a remark he just made. If I quote it correctly, he said: "Whether or not it is a good law or a bad law is not for me to decide." He's referring to the amendment to the Agricultural Land Development Act which was introduced by Social Credit to empower certain persons to appeal directly to cabinet, specifically to ELUC, in order to have an appeal heard for exclusion. If I heard him correctly — please correct me if I'm wrong — he said: "Whether or not it is a good law or a bad law is not for me to decide."

The Minister of Health is profoundly wrong. He is wrong in a number of ways of which he appears completely ignorant. One of the brilliant twentieth-century scholars was a woman by the name of Dr. Hannah Arendt. She wrote a book subtitled On the Banality of Evil, in which she pointed out, in a remarkable and highly detailed way, what happens when people turn the blind eye to a bad law, to a bad action or to a bad government; what happens, in fact, when, people who administer the law stand up and say: "Whether or not it's a good law isn't for me to decide." Well, Hannah Arendt knew what that sort of political banality, that political irresponsibility, that lack of moral conviction means in the hands of public administrators.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Minister of Health kept a straight face and said that it's not for him to decide whether or not it's a bad law. Well, that's false on a number of counts. First of all, he was a member of the government that introduced that law. He is sworn by his oath, as long as he signs it, to uphold that law. It is in fact for him to decide whether or not it is a good law. He voted in its favour. He administered it once. It is a false and wrong claim for that person or any other member who voted in favour of that law to say it is no longer a matter for him to decide whether it's a good law or a bad law. If that was his position then, why did he vote in favour of that law when it first came down?

However, it's obviously a convenient position for him to hold, because he probably now recognizes what I suspect some members of the coalition opposite recognize. People have lost confidence in that government for, among other reasons, the fact that you introduced a political appeal into the farmland appeal process. You see, never before was it political, but rather it was specifically and directly commanded by law to be apolitical. I'm of the strong opinion that it is a better matter that such decisions be left in the hands of persons who do not have political careers to protect or political axes to grind. The Minister of Health obviously feels contrary.

Now we make those kinds of choices in a lot of other fields. For instance, although the Parliament of Canada enacts the Criminal Code, it does not purport to administer it; we leave that to an independent judiciary. We trust those people to be apolitical. We trust them to be autonomous. We give them the authority, and then we remove ourselves from its execution. This is an important principle of British law: the parliament writes the law but someone else enforces it.

Parliament has many times recognized its own limitations; Social Credit appears not to. Social Credit would have us believe that they can write the law and enforce it too; and in the case of farmland, that's bad law, irresponsible law and dangerous law. For any person over there, even a Socred, to claim that a Socred cabinet is able to be apolitical and independent of partisan considerations when determining whether or not to award its friends the release of farmland for other and more materially rewarding purposes is to claim a false thing. In British Columbia, because arable land is so rare and valuable, it takes political courage to say no to developers. In our province, because farmland is hard to come by and much of it has been lost, it takes political courage to say no to speculators.

I'm very proud of the fact that our government had the courage to introduce an agricultural land reserve system. It was a hard thing to do. It was not, at the time, popular with everyone. It took courage, it took guts, it took foresight, and it took a level of political judgment that we've not often seen in the political annals of this province. We know what it was like under the old Socreds: anything goes — 20,000 acres a year goes; 30,000 acres a year goes. It goes to K Marts and shopping centres and Safeway and parking lots. Under the old Socreds, that was all right. Under the old Socreds it was permissible to pave the Fraser Valley from Delta to Chilliwack, and that's what would have happened if they had been in power during the mid-seventies. But thank God, they weren't, at least for a brief instance.

Now what happened? Political times changed. The public became better informed, and to the horror of the coalition, they were forced to reverse themselves. You'll remember the hysterical and insane remarks made by people who shall be nameless — except Hansard reveals who they are — who said that the ALR system was a commie plot. Do you remember that? Now in other places in other times, people who made claims like that would be visited by gentlemen in white coats, given tiny pink pills, and hoped to recover. But there were certain mentally ill people in this province who believed that the farmland preservation legislation introduced by the New Democratic administration was a commie plot designed to subvert the values of the western world.

Well, no doubt it was a struggle, politically, to put that into place; no doubt Mr. Barrett and Mr. Stupich, who were significantly responsible for that incredibly courageous legislation to save farmland, made a very personal and very direct sacrifice; no doubt it can be argued by any rational observer that it was a tough thing to do. I don't think it can be observed by anyone else who is rational that it was, however, part of the Marxist menace. I mean, if anyone believes that, they will probably believe as well that the NDP established a secret police force — and we know something about that, don't we, Mr. Chairman?

It takes guts to say no to developers in this province who want to convert farmland to some other purpose; it takes courage to say no to speculators who want to ruin forever the agricultural capacity of this province. That's what our government had: those guts, that courage and that political judgment.

MR. KEMPF: What kind of a farmer are you?

MR. BARBER: Good point, Fred.

[ Page 2621 ]

Whether or not the undermining of the ALR system by allowing a political appeal is a good law or a bad law is very much for this Legislature to decide. It is irresponsible and wrong for the Minister of Health to claim to the contrary, but that's not inconsistent with what that government has done.

In 1973 the Socreds made a strategic error. In 1973 they thought they could persuade the people of British Columbia that this ALR system was, after all, a Marxist scheme. So they gave speeches that were mentally ill; they conceived of conspiracies that did not exist; they outlined plots that never took place; they argued in favour of schemes that were never real; and they told the people of British Columbia that it was all part of a socialist design to nationalize all the land in the province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What are you doing now? What kind of speech are you giving now, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: Well, in fact, it was nothing of the sort. In fact — the Minister of Agriculture notwithstanding — the design was purely and simply this: it was to give the future a chance; to give this province an opportunity to raise its own food; it was intended in a rational and intelligent way to recognize world conditions, and conditions in this province as well. It was legislation that realized that Malthus was right when he predicted the consequences of human population explosions; it was legislation that recognized the reality that in this province — depending on how you count it — less than 8, 7 or 6 percent of all the land is arable. Less than 7 percent of the whole land, depending on the figures you use and the categories you apply — one through seven in the ALR system — is available for farming.

It takes courage to say no to developers and speculators, and the old Socreds never had it. The New Democrats had it, and they brought in what was initially a terribly unpopular piece of legislation, because there were some who believed the mentally ill claims of those who made them — that it was a commie plot, and therefore it shouldn't be supported.

Well, finally reason saw the day, finally reason won the battle, finally reason persuaded the people of British Columbia that if we give all the land to developers and speculators, there'll be nothing left in a short while. If we give it to those people, they'll betray our own heritage and future at the same moment. So we said "No more" to that. That philosophy and that point of view is simply wrong. It is uninformed, it is irrational, it is narrow and self-serving, and finally and profoundly, it will be self-defeating. If we do not retain an agricultural capacity, we retain no hold on the future. We will in fact, thereby and thereafter, find it necessary to rely on other sources of food, imported and expensive and unreliable. That way and that consequence is supremely stupid.

Now what do we have? A government that misjudged in 1973, a government which, when in opposition, said they would do away with the ALR system. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, a government which, when in opposition, voted against the bill, a government which said: "Put us back into office and we'll get rid of this horrible commie plot that would save farmland for the future"? Well, they changed their position at least verbally. Come 1975, the public attitude had changed in advance. So in 1975 the reorganized Socreds said: "Trust us and we'll save farmland." The problem is that this government's credibility has been significantly impaired ever since. It's not just because Hydro wants tens of thousands of acres at Site C in the Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: "Tens of thousands of acres." That's the kind of garbage that you peddle.

MR. BARBER: Stand up and speak for Hydro and make your case.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Would you call those rational men to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) will have every opportunity to speak to vote 10. With that said we will once again return to Committee of Supply, vote 10, and the first member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: I always tell the truth. The truth is they voted against the ALR; the truth is they did nothing in 20 years to save farmland: the truth is they are undermining the ALR today. It is as simple as that. Let me illustrate. Langley, British Columbia, is the site of some 600 acres of perfectly viable farmland. It is the site of an agricultural community that has a relatively strong economic base, that has the economic and the capital infrastructure, the trained people, the tradition and the will to engage in farming. Langley, British Columbia, offers the people of this province those things. Good for them. I respect their intentions. I respect what they've tried to do. But what happens? Because the Vancouver Sun found out about it. we now know that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) politically meddled, interfered and involved himself in order to, against all scientific evidence, persuade the cabinet that the 600 acres were not, in fact, farmland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you cannot impute improper motive to another member of the House.

MR. BARBER: By Socred standards it's not improper, Mr. Chairman, and that's the issue. They always meddle. They always interfere. It's not improper; it's only Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry, the Chair cannot accept that remark. If you have imputed improper motive to a member....

MR. BARBER: I haven't. I have described behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have to ask you to withdraw, if you have, in fact, imputed....

MR. BARBER: I have not. I am describing....

MR. KING: On a point of order. I would suggest to the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't suggest. Your point of order, please?

MR. KING: I am trying to do so, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will give me an opportunity. The point of order is that it

[ Page 2622 ]

has never been deemed wrong in this Legislature to attribute political interference to a member of the House or to the government. I find it peculiar that the members across the way are allowed to interject with all mariner of insults and not be called to order in the same fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's point is well taken. The Chair has been trying to maintain order in the House so that the member who has the floor can speak. The Chair was simply advising against a member imputing improper motive to another member. The first member for Victoria continues on vote 10.

MR. BARBER: There may or may not have been an improper motive on the part of the minister involved, the member for Langley, but I didn't say that. What I said is that he interfered, meddled and involved himself in a highly sensitive matter. He was wrong to do so, as the government has now learned — witness their reversed position. He was wrong to do so, as the Premier realized all too late — witness the reverse of policy. He was wrong to do so — witness the current case before the courts. That much is self-evident. It can't be disputed. If he had been right in doing what he did, this dispute wouldn't be on the table today. The point is: he was wrong.

The community of Langley has a history of people involving themselves politically in land use matters of a very sensitive nature. I'll be raising some of that stuff during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), because we've been doing a lot of homework in the last several months and a lot of research.

The Fraser Valley generally has an unfortunate history of too easy compliance with the whims and wishes of developers. Someday someone will write an important book — which, hopefully, someone opposite will read or have read to them — about the development history of the entire Fraser Valley and about the peculiar conflicts of interest on the parts of a few individuals who have found it to their personal advantage in the valley to say yes to developers, speculators and Socreds and to say no to farmland.

Bam-Bam applauds. Good grief. Well, at least he's plain and honest about it. Give him credit for that.

What would have happened, Mr. Chairman, if we had an administration in the mid-seventies that didn't have the guts to say no to developers and speculators? How many acres would have been lost? How many thousands upon thousands of irrecoverable acres of farmland would have been removed forever from the agricultural option in this province? Well, by best count, some 22,000 acres would have been lost in 1975. The best guess of the Minister of Agriculture of that day — I stand to be corrected, because I'm working from memory — was 28,000 or 29,000 in the following year. It's understandable why. There are tremendous development pressures on the Fraser Valley. Of course there are, but there are other ways to meet those pressures than to simply abandon farmland in their favour. There are other ways to deal with housing problems than to simply say: "Pave all the farmland. Forget about the consequences, and to hell with the future." There are other ways to be responsible to the demands of population and urban growth than simply to say "Hello, developers. Bye-bye, farmland" that was the endless message of Social Credit, and still really is because look what they've done in Langley. They thought they could get away with it. The member for Langley thought that he could get away with political interference on behalf of his pals, Gloucester Properties and Ainslie Lorreto — whom he knows, who is well known as a significant officer in the Gloucester Properties corporation, owned in Chile, and who's been an active worker in the Social Credit Party in Langley. Is it, or is not, a coincidence that the Social Credit member for Langley took up the case of the Social Credit member for Gloucester? Was that just a happy accident? Or maybe they talked to one another. Is it possible that Ms. Lorreto phoned up Mr. McClelland and said: "Hi, Bob, I've got a favour to ask…?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a great guy for character assassination — one of the best I've seen, just beautiful.

MR. BARBER: Well, if it's not true, how is it then that it is so consistent with everything Social Credit has done to favour developers and speculators in this province for years and years? If it's not true, it would be a first.

Mr. Chairman, the issue is clearly whether or not the committee heard scientific evidence or political evidence. There were only two kinds that ELUC was empowered to hear. Is that not the dispute? Did ELUC act on the basis of scientific advice or political advice? What else is there? We know what the scientific advice was. We know where it came from. We know that it was apolitical, non-partisan, derived from the public service, from the Land Commission. It derived from independent, autonomous and scientifically disinterested opinion. That scientific opinion was that this land has agricultural capability and should not be removed from the system. That was the scientific evidence. Does the government dispute that? Do they say that's not so? Was there other scientific evidence to the contrary, with which we've not been made familiar? If so, make it familiar now. Will you accept that challenge? If there was contrary scientific opinion about the agricultural viability of that land, let's hear it. If we don't hear that from you, we can only conclude that the committee must have heard some other evidence. What might that be?

According to the minutes of the committee there was only one other body of evidence provided. That was provided by the member from Langley — the member for Gloucester. He said that in his opinion, because he lived next door in Langley, it was never thought of as farmland and therefore it needn't be thought of as farmland, and besides, there is a good case to be made for its industrial use. Whether or not his neighbours thought it was farmland is hardly the point. That is not what the law requires. The uninformed opinion of someone's neighbours is no basis for a rational policy that says whether or not it belongs in the reserve. The basis should be scientific, now that the law is set. The basis should be rational, now that the law is set. The basis should be evidentiary, now that the law is set. The scientific evidence was clear and straightforward, was it not? The Land Commission, with no contradiction, said it was agriculturally viable, period — no qualification, no contradiction, no scientific evidence to the contrary.

If that's not so, then someone carefully edited the minutes of that meeting. Of course we know that's not true, because there's no secret police anymore. So they didn't do it. We know the member for Langley wouldn't do ito Surely the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) wouldn't edit the minutes of the meeting and remove deleterious material.

[ Page 2623 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Make another allegation.

MR. BARBER: I'm not.

The scientific evidence is clear, its conclusions are self-evident, its conclusions are persuasive. The minutes were not tampered with, and the only other advice the committee heard was political. That's all it was, political. There was no other scientific case made. So what do we have? We have a case that can be made that someone meddled, that someone interfered, that someone on behalf of someone else involved themselves politically in favour of Gloucester and against the ALR. According to the minutes only one person did that. That is the Socred member for Langley. Why he did that is a matter of conjecture. His motivations are a matter of public curiosity. Why he would do that, it's hard to say. Except, of course, if you know the history of Social Credit in British Columbia — then it all makes perfect sense.

This government badly misjudged the popular mood in 1973. They mistold the future. They thought that the initial hysterical arguments, the insane and mentally ill arguments that were made at the time, would carry the day. They did not. Those arguments failed, and instead the rational, farsighted and intelligent case succeeded. That case was and remains simply this: you have to have guts, the law and the weight of government to save farmland. Our administration had the guts and the law, and when it was the government it did the job. I suppose that is as vividly and clearly as one can make the case for a difference between our side and theirs. For 20 years they sat on their agricultural thumbs and did nothing but wave goodbye — as best they could do it from that position — as the farmland disappeared. What they did when in government, '52 to '72, was betray the future — sell out the heritage and the options simultaneously.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

What our government did in three and a half short years was try to find some way in law and in public opinion to have it realized that if you abandon an acre of farmland to a parking lot, you don't get it back; because, you see, the increased value of that parking lot is sufficiently and overwhelmingly great that no one will propose to rip it up and turn it into a tomato patch. You can make more money as a parking lot. You can put a little machine on it, dispense tickets and tow people away if they offend the machine. It's just not rational to conclude that anyone is going to rip up a parking lot and put in potatoes, tomatoes or carrots. It's not going to happen.

We have a number of parking lots in downtown Victoria. If anyone was going to engage in urban agriculture in the capital city and there was an economic case in its favour — some Socreds would have us believe that you can get farmland back once you've used it for another purpose — I guess, today, at the corner of View and Blanshard, we'd have a pumpkin patch.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'd be right in the middle of it.

MR. BRUMMET: And you're the head pumpkin.

MR. BARBER: Also good rational debate from the government side.

The point is there ain't pumpkin patches in downtown communities, or in suburbs either, by and large, because the economics militate against it. If you've made a capital investment of tens of thousands of dollars in an enterprise, home, parking lot or shopping centre, you are likely not going to be able to recover that capital investment by tearing it all down in 20 years and turning it into a farm. Unfortunately, that's just not economical. Thereby, you can conclude that it probably won't happen. So the further scientific case makes itself. If once you've lost it as farmland and it's turned to some other purpose and you can't get it back, what do you do when you run out of farmland?

Well, in the past we seem to rationalize that we could rely on California, we could rely on Mexico, we could rely on certain products made in southern Ontario, and we could rely on blind. stupid hope that somehow we'd muddle through. Well, blind and stupid hope wasn't good enough; it wasn't rational enough. Thank God for people like Stupich and Barrett, who had the guts to say no to developers and no to speculators and no to the hysterics who would have an ALR system described, if anyone would believe it, as a Marxist plot out to undermine the family security and the home and the land tenure system of the people of British Columbia.

They changed their tune, the coalition did. They had to because the public changed; they had to because they lost the debate. They won the election, mind you, but they lost the debate on that issue. So now they tell us they're in favour of saving farmland, but what do they do? Well, against all scientific evidence, but following the political evidence, a committee of the Socred cabinet decides to let Gloucester of Chile turn 600 acres of farmland in Langley into something else. Thank God it was stopped, at least for the time being, Mr. Chairman — not wanting to anticipate the hoped-for outcome of a court case. Nonetheless, thank God public opinion prevailed a second time and persuaded the coalition that they had better reverse their tracks and, with any luck, cover up the tracks altogether of the member for Langley, who intervened politically on behalf of one of his constituents.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Stop mumbling. We can't hear you. Speak up!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do up your tie! Do up your shirt!

MR. BARBER: Comb my hair! Cut my beard! Get a job! Right? Thanks, Mom. You'd get along. Her name is Dorothy; her phone number.... [Laughter.] I'll send you a note. The people of Victoria like well enough the way I'm dressed. They've sent me here twice, and they may do it again. It's okay by them; it's good enough for me.

The argument, though, is, I think, much more important philosophically than it is administratively — returning to the debate for a moment. Quite how the government blew it is not quite so important as why they would care to blow it. Quite how it was that someone meddled politically to change the decision is not so much the point as how it would come to be that any government could contemplate and any government could permit anyone to make an argument like that in the 1980s. Maybe in the forties and, fifties, when we didn't know as much about population growth and agricultural land capability and the future of the cities, it would be forgivable to make such a case. After all, people didn't know better. We didn't know about those problems and those demands. In the

[ Page 2624 ]

eighties it's not forgivable. Ignorance today is no excuse at all for that sort of policy. Politics is no longer an excuse either. You have misjudged politically. Reverse yourselves. Stop with the political appeals. Stop saying yes to developers and speculators. Instead say yes to the future and give farmland a chance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In hearing some of the members today speak about the history of the Land Commission Act, as it was originally known, or the Agricultural Land Commission Act, as it is known today, is most interesting. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) suggested that the government of the day should simply accept that agricultural land should be used for no other purpose. It's as simple as that. That would not be a very difficult act to write, if it were the intent of any government at any time that agricultural land, regardless of its capability, be used for no other purpose than agricultural purposes.

When the act was first brought to British Columbia, there were sections of the act which dealt with the manner in which land was to be placed in agricultural land reserves. A very large part of the act was designed to offer an appeal mechanism. The first member for Victoria this afternoon advised this House that never before was it politically possible to be involved in an appeal. It was earlier discussed today that the political aspect is that cabinet, made up of elected representatives, were to hear an appeal. Therefore it was political. The member said "never before." He suggested that an amendment was made in 1977 which allowed direct appeals to cabinet. The member could take a few moments, perhaps, to read either the original act or the amended act.

There are three basic ways in which an appeal may be heard under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. There are three bodies that may hear appeals. One body is the cabinet, another is the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, and the third body is the Agricultural Land Commission. They are the three bodies which may hear appeals under the act. The permission to hear an appeal by cabinet was granted in statute by the New Democratic Party. The NDP in the original act allowed appeals to be made directly to cabinet…

MRS. WALLACE: How?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: …if the application were made on behalf of a municipality or a regional district…

MRS. WALLACE: That's right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: …or by the Land Commission…

MRS. WALLACE: Right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: …or on its own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) shakes his head.

Mr. Chairman, quoting from the 1973 act, chapter 46, section 9(1): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, upon the application of a municipality, regional district, or the commission, or on his own, by order, exclude any land, whether Crown land or private land, from the reserve established under subsection (1) of section 8." Mr. Member, I believe you were on that committee when orders were used to exclude land from agricultural land reserves.

The suggestion that it was this government which first permitted cabinet to hear appeals is absolutely false. The original bill, the original act, permitted such direct appeals to cabinet. Another section of the original act permitted the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet to hear appeals.

MR. COCKE: They weren't appeals at all.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, they weren't appeals at all. Presumably, Mr. Chairman, as they weren't appeals, members of cabinet excluded land simply by way of order — not appeals, just by way of order. Or are you suggesting, Mr. Member, that there are no such orders? Because there certainly are such orders on record, excluding land from agricultural land reserves. You tell us there were no appeals. Well, maybe you had a different method of.... This is where the scientific information presumably was being considered, not by way of appeal.

There are two other sections of the original act which permitted appeals to be heard to allow land to be excluded. Under section 9(3) of the original act the Land Commission itself could hear appeals from individual persons who felt aggrieved by the legislation. The Land Commission could order the land excluded. Failing that, the person who felt aggrieved if permission were not granted could seek the signatures of any two members of the Land Commission. If these two people agreed, then the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet could hear the appeal — a political appeal body, members of cabinet. The Environment and Land Use Committee, under their authority under section 9(9), after hearing such an appeal could, subject to any terms or conditions, allow the appeal — an order wasn't even required for that process — and the land comes out of an agricultural land reserve. The decision was made by politicians — elected representatives.

Two of the three bodies permitted to allow land from an agricultural land reserve were political bodies. The first member for Victoria suggested that never before was it a political decision. We had defined earlier today that "political decision" meant elected representatives heard the appeals — not partisan politics, but political. I think the same member suggested that the politicians should bring in the laws and someone else should bear the appeals. But in the 1973 Land Commission Act two of the three appeal bodies were political bodies appointed by the Premier of the day — in his selection of cabinet and in selection of members of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

To suggest that the amendments to the act allowed for the first time direct appeals to cabinet is absolute nonsense, because the amendments did not permit appeals to cabinet any more than the original act did. It continued the same process.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster apparently has read neither act.

MR. COCKE: Why did you amend it?

[ Page 2625 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: For that member's education — and apparently the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) hasn't read the act either — I will go back to section 9(1) of the NDP Land Commission Act.

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — the cabinet, in case they don't understand the terminology — "may, upon the application of a municipality, a regional district, the commission or on his own, by order exclude any land, whether Crown land or private land, from the reserve established under subsection 1 of section 8. Similarly, the Environment and Land Use Committee can exclude land from an agricultural land reserve upon application."

There are two political bodies hearing appeals. That authority was not extended by any amendment. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) today, in response to some accusations, tried to explain and I believe adequately explained, the amendments permitted that minister responsible to permit an appeal to be heard, not to hear an appeal, by the Environment and Land Use Committee, the same committee that heard appeals under the NDP negative, socialist Land Commission Act. The grinning cheshire cat from New Westminster who was on that committee, but by way of public record attended very few of those meetings....

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, yes. It's a matter of record, Mr. Member. It certainly is. To suggest that when the NDP cabinet was excluding land from the agricultural land reserve, it wasn't by way of appeal, then we should ask, what method was used? No one was appealing? No, it was the cabinet sitting down and saying: "Let's take some land out of here, even if there is no appeal." Because the cabinet was given authority to exclude land on its own. Presumably the member is suggesting that's how they did it and not by way of appeal.

I would also suggest, though, Mr. Chairman, to our purist member from New Westminster that indeed consideration was given to appeals from municipalities or regional districts and some were successful. In 1972, Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting bits of political propaganda from the NDP was a very colourful brochure of farmland put out by their member for Delta, and he showed an illustration of Tilbury Island and said: "We Will Save Land for Agriculture." Immediately thereafter Tilbury Island became an industrial park in Delta.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Carl now?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In my municipality of Richmond there was a farm known as the Wong farm at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway. The Wong farm is now called the Riverside Industrial Park. Who was in power when that was permitted? The interesting aspect of the Richmond property is that that section of property was permitted to be developed as an industrial park, but the minister responsible that day said to the company: "We want 40 acres from you at half price." We want 40 acres at $7,500 an acre for which they had paid $15,000, plus six acres to be used for a park. These were the terms of that land not staying in a land freeze.

It's a matter of statistics, Mr. Chairman, if the members would like to avail themselves of the information. During the NDP's tenure in office thousands of acres of land were excluded from agricultural land reserves by the New Democratic Party — and we learned today — not by way of appeal, but apparently by the only other method available under section 91 which was "on their own," by cabinet decree, by order.

The member for Victoria, who suggested that for the first time appeals could be heard by a political body, is absolutely incorrect. He must have had that information given to him by the person who advised him on Seaboard. Do you remember when he was thumbing through all these statutes one night? Mr. Chairman, there are inaccuracies which are given to this House by way of some members opposite about the acts over which they had control — presumably one or even two members of cabinet read some of their acts at some time. To suggest that cabinet or the Environment Land Use Committee of cabinet were first empowered to hear appeals by the Social Credit government is grossly inaccurate. It's a historical fact that it's in the book. That funny person for New Westminster still not only can't read, but he can't hear when it's read to him, or he fails to understand. It was the NDP who empowered cabinet to hear appeals and to exclude land from an ALR.

MR. COCKE: And include too. It's still there too. It's still in the act.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: section 9(1) says: "The Lieutenant governor...." Well. the marginal notes tell it all. It says: "exclusion from agricultural land reserves." It doesn't say "inclusion." It says "exclusion.'' The Environment Land Use Committee of cabinet was granted authority to hear appeals for exclusion by the NDP. The Land Commission was granted authority to permit exclusion by the NDP. Those three bodies — two of which are political — can still hear appeals today and they still have the same powers, so nothing has changed in that respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Molson Hop Farms.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Molson Hop Farms in Kamloops?

Mr. Chairman, my final comment on this is directed to the member for Victoria on behalf of those who are not present today and can't speak. I would like to thank him on behalf of the associations for the mentally ill of British Columbia in making his ridiculous and careless remarks.

MR. COCKE: You're the president, aren't you?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, I would be very pleased to be the president of any association for the mentally ill in this province, because perhaps, Mr. Former Minister of Health, you don't have the compassion for and understanding of those who are suffering from mental illness. To you perhaps it's a political joke. You, sir, are a political joke.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. From you that's a compliment. You're as bad in the House as you were on the hotlines.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The major saving grace is that you were never invited on as a guest.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

[ Page 2626 ]

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.