[ Page 2627 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

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

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

Workers' compensation. Ms. Sanford –– 2628

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

Price of beer. Mr. Macdonald –– 2628

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

Dangerous and hazardous chemicals. Mr. Skelly –– 2629

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

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2629

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2631

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2632

Mr. Stupich –– 2635

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2635

Mrs. Wallace –– 2636

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2637

Mr. Stupich –– 2637

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2637

Mr. King –– 2637

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2640

Mr. Skelly –– 2640

Mr. Barrett –– 2642

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2642

Mr. Barber –– 2647

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2652

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Leading us in our prayer today was Rabbi Markowitz of Congregation Temple Emmanuel in Victoria. I'm sorry that he has left the chamber but I know that all members would want to express appreciation for his attendance. Also, I think it is appropriate to note that the synagogue in Victoria is truly an historic building. My colleague the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was instrumental, just a short while ago, in ensuring that provincial government assistance towards the restoration of that synagogue is assured. The congregation has responded and the province was very pleased to respond. He is presumably still in the building. Would the House make him welcome today.

MR. HALL: I invite the House to join with the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and myself in welcoming, on this rainy day in Victoria, another group of students from Surrey: a large group of students from Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School and their teachers and some parents who are visiting the Legislature this afternoon.

HON MRS. McCARTHY: On behalf of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), I would like to introduce in the galleries today, from North Delta, Mrs. Diane Darke, with her daughter Suzanne. Accompanying them are Mrs. Darke's parents from Britain. I would like to ask the House to make them very welcome.

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

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It is a great privilege for me today, particularly as the new Minister of Tourism, to ask the House to welcome some of our very dedicated and competent staff from Tourism B.C. who are home in British Columbia for staff and industry meetings. With us in the gallery are many old friends of many members of this House: Mr. James Willis, our sales manager from B.C. House in London; Miss Marjorie Green, our sales manager from Tourism British Columbia in San Francisco; Mr. Richard Ludwig, sales manager of Tourism B.C. from Los Angeles; and Mr. Dennis Holmes, manager of Conventions Vancouver and the rest of the world. I would ask the House to welcome these very dedicated people who serve all of the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

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

Also, it's not always that the member for Okanagan North has constituents in the gallery, but we're fortunate today; we have four. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Tony Stamboulieh and his business associate, Mr. Peter Easton of London, who are here to discuss the tourism industry. Also, from the great community of Lumby, are Mrs. Tina Eagle and her daughter Mrs. Sheila Plum. Would the House please welcome them all.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon in the members' gallery are two friends: Mr. Tom Sigurdson, a political science student at the University of Victoria and a former constituent of mine in the city of Vancouver, and a friend from Killarney, Ireland, by the name of Don Eadie. Mr. Eadie is a member of the Irish Labour Party, and he obtained his bachelor of science degree from the University of Dublin and currently is studying for a PhD in chemistry at the University of Victoria. I would like to ask the House to make them welcome.

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

Oral Questions

MEMBERSHIP OF B.C.
UTILITIES COMMISSION

MR. SKELLY: I have a question directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister confirm that a former director of B.C. Hydro and Social Credit cabinet minister. Ray Williston, has been approached to become a member of the B.C. Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

NOISE LEVELS ON
QUEEN OF THE NORTH

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious concerns expressed about the high noise levels on the ferry Queen of the North, can the minister assure the House that he has instructed the Workers' Compensation Board to monitor noise levels on all B.C. ferries and give copies of the results to the ferry workers' union?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker. this is the first that I have heard about the question of noise level on the ferries, but I think that I'm quite prepared to take the question and make the appropriate inquiries.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Is the minister aware that the crew members are prepared not to sail on the Queen of the North unless something is done about the noise levels on that vessel?

HON. MR. FRASER: I wish the member for Mackenzie wouldn't make these irresponsible public statements. At the present time the Queen of the North is sailing. This is the first I've heard about it. If they want to discourage the service, I don't think this is the way to do it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary to the irresponsible Minister of Transportation and Highways who, if he were doing his job, would know what was happening to that corporation. The vessel is two weeks late in spite of his assurance to me two weeks ago that that vessel would be

[ Page 2628 ]

sailing on May 15 or 16, and it will not be in service until the end of this month, if then. It went back into Burrard drydock for a supplementary refit this morning, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to assure this House that something will be done about safety and the noise levels on that vessel. Will the minister assure this House?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Mackenzie, this is all new to me. I want to say that we have an excellent management team, and I'm sure they'll took after everything and abide by all the rules and regulations that exist.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. A worker at the Alcan plant in Kitimat was recently refused his workers' compensation claim for an injury he sustained while participating during working hours in a Workers' Compensation Board health study. This was done at the board's request. He was denied any compensation coverage, even though he sustained that injury during that test. In view of this case, has the minister taken steps to ensure that workers injured in the course of participating in WCB health studies are fully compensated?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will again make an inquiry. It seems to me that the request being made by the member is a most reasonable one, and I'll take it from there.

CHRISTINA LAKE
FLOOD COMPENSATION

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. As the minister is no doubt aware, I have a number of former constituents who have retired or made their current homes in the Christina Lake area. On April 28 this year Sutherland Creek overflowed its banks and severely damaged or destroyed a number of homes in that area. In view of the government's great compassion and sensitivity in dealing with flood victims in the Coquitlam and Burnaby areas last winter and in dealing with victims of flash-flooding in the Kitimat, Terrace and Skeena areas a year or so ago, I will ask the minister if he, along with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, could have a member of staff investigate some of these damage claims and, hopefully, compensate the individuals for the damage they have suffered.

I might point out that even though damage to perhaps 15 or 20 homes does not make an immediate splash like the massive number of homes damaged in the Coquitlam, Port Moody and Terrace areas, to the individuals involved in each case it is equally severe. I would certainly hope that the two ministers could get together with their colleagues on the treasury benches and recommend that these people be compensated. These losses, as the minister knows, are not covered by insurance.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The recommendation has actually taken place already, and there are meetings between this ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture. The policy covers permanent homes, not vacation homes.

MR. D'ARCY: I made it clear, in what I admit was a fairly lengthy preamble, that I was discussing people who had either retired permanently to this area or made their homes there even though they may still be working in the Trail area. I was not talking about vacation homes.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I appreciate the member's remarks, and those matters are taken into consideration when assessments are made by the correct authorities. We don't have any difficulty in determining which falls under the guidelines of a vacation home and which falls under the guidelines of a permanent residence.

PRICE OF BEER

MR. MACDONALD: I have an oral question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. From February 28, 1977, up to last April there have been six increases in the consumer price of a case of beer, amounting to 51 percent in that period — following, I might say, visits of the breweries to the minister. I am preambling this with the query as to whether when the breweries cough the customer has to get a pain in the exchequer, because that's what's been happening. The price is now up to $4.95 a case.

My question is: can the minister produce to this House any arithmetic which would show that the breweries have been justified in receiving these kinds of increases?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The increases which the member refers to have resulted from the increase in the price of the product at the wholesale level to the liquor distribution branch, in most instances. The most recent increase reflected an increase in the excise tax on the part of the federal government.

The general manager of the liquor distribution branch is the person who accepts the information provided by the breweries in their request for an increase in the wholesale price; the general manager of the liquor distribution branch then makes his recommendations to the minister and to cabinet.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the minister: have you got any arithmetic that would show that these increases were justified? You're the minister. Can you present anything to the House to show that these things were justified — far more than the increase in the cost of living?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe that the general manager certainly has information which justified his recommendations for the various increases which the member speaks of.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question. It appears the minister was not shown that these increases were justified. Has he made any decision to place this kind of increase in the price of a case of beer — and a barrel of beer, for that matter — under the new proposed B.C. public utilities commission, where it can be examined in detail?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I have not, but I'll certainly ask the minister responsible for that commission to try to rationalize why beer should be considered a utility.

NOISE LEVELS ON
QUEEN OF THE NORTH

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

[ Page 2629 ]

of the North, formerly the Queen of Surrey. I've just been advised that the chief of operations of B.C. Ferries, George Baldwin, states the noise level problem involves only five crew cabins; the Workers' Compensation Board is on board at the present time taking noise level tests, and it is being worked out to ensure proper comfort. I'd like the members to say: isn't that good service!

DANGEROUS AND
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. Since the beginning of the session the minister has been questioned a number of times on the subject of the handling, transportation and storage of dangerous chemicals. It is clear from the answers the minister has given that his ministry has not done a comprehensive analysis of the problem, nor is there a policy in place. Has the minister recognized the need for a comprehensive policy with respect to the handling, storage and transport of hazardous chemicals, and has the minister decided to establish a public inquiry into the issue?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I just made some notes while the question was coming. In the preamble the member said "dangerous chemicals," and in the closing remarks he said "hazardous chemicals." Since there is a substantial difference between what is defined as a "dangerous" chemical and what is defined as a "hazardous'' chemical.... That is the matter of semantics that we face every day when we try to define what these particular chemicals are. Our ministry only deals with waste problems with hazardous and dangerous chemicals. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) deals with the transportation of dangerous and hazardous chemicals.

MR. SKELLY: To the Minister of Environment: in any event there is a serious problem upon which the minister has made some announcements — for example with floating barrels of dangerous or hazardous chemicals offshore in British Columbia where all he has done is advise yachtsmen to look out for them. The minister should be aware that there is a need for the policy. I ask the minister again — rather than getting into the semantics, which he is prone to do in these cases — has he recognized the need for such a policy? If so, what does he plan to do about it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: First of all, the announcement went to fishermen, not to yachtsmen, because the weather is somewhat inclement on the Queen Charlotte Islands for yachting at this time of year.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be left for my estimates. It gets far too long and involved for the brief period of time we have here in question period to discuss it. I could go through it in lengthy detail but, as you know, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers meeting which was held in Halifax last month discussed this very problem. Unfortunately I couldn't be present, but members of my staff were there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the federal government and also in working with my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the most important thing that we can do to handle this problem in British Columbia is to ensure that we have a manifest system for transporting hazardous and dangerous chemicals.

HIGHWAY RELOCATION
BETWEEN REVELSTOKE AND MICA

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I do want to thank him for finally answering my previous question. I know that he is going to apologize for the language he used in that answer to me in the hallway.

My new question to the minister is: can the minister confirm that it will cost $120 million to relocate the 60 miles of highway between Revelstoke and Mica Creek in order to place it above the water level that will be created by the Revelstoke reservoir?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm glad the member for Mackenzie has moved out of the coast area: B.C.'s a large place. The road from Revelstoke to Mica — that agreement was entered into some three years ago, and B.C. Hydro has got to relocate the road because of the Revelstoke Dam. They gave the project to our ministry, and it is estimated the relocation of the road will cost about $100 million. all payable by Hydro. The job is half completed; the balance of the contracts are already awarded.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: I have a few rather specific questions for the Minister of Agriculture today. Most of them deal with his responsibilities as the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission.

I have been somewhat concerned by the continuing lip service we get from the government relative to their commitment to preservation of agricultural land. As I review the things that have happened over the past few years, and particularly since the amendment to the Land Act which provided for a direct appeal to cabinet without the okay of at

[ Page 2630 ]

least two of the land commissioners, my concern has been specifically because of the secrecy that has been involved in those kinds of things. It's along those lines. They're not all section 9(8) appeals — or section 10(3), depending on which act you're talking about, the old or the new. There are various appeals that have been raised to me, and I have some concerns regarding them. Of course, some of them probably go back even before that. Perhaps one of the first cases that came to my attention, long before this minister was responsible, was the case of Doug Brett Motors in Chilliwack where ELUC took that land out and it appeared that there were reasons to suspect that there was political influence involved there.

Gloucester Properties, of course, has been the most outstanding thing, and I have a summary of the sort of things that have gone on, starting back in May 1977 when the original application was filed. We got along to July 1979 and we had at that point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Excuse me, hon member. At this point I have to ask hon. members to come to order. It's increasingly difficulty for the minister to hear the member presently speaking. Possibly the member would wait just a moment until members take their seats.

MRS. WALLACE: Or leave.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize it must be difficult for the minister to follow this with the high noise level. As the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) said: "We should get the WCB in to investigate the noise level in the House."

We came along then from May 1977 when the application was first filed. We got to July 4, 1979. This was after that case had gone before the Land Commission and had been thoroughly reviewed by them with a unanimous decision — all members of the Land Commission — opposing it. But because of section 9(8) or 10(3), and because of the minister then responsible, who apparently just decided, as he attempted to justify his position, that all appeals that did go to ELUC should go through.... On July 4, 1979, the member for Langley, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), was quoted as saying that in his opinion this is really none of the Land Commission's business, if we have empty industrial land or not. Remarks like that lead me to wonder about this government's commitment to the preservation of agricultural land. He goes on to say that there has not been enough care taken by the Land Commission and its agents in rating the land. He said: "I think that the comparison that we were given today by Mr. Runka is extremely simplistic." Mr. Runka is one of the most well-known and respected agrologists in British Columbia, and to say that his evaluation of agricultural land was simplistic indicates to me that perhaps that particular member doesn't have too much concern about the preservation of agricultural land.

We go on from July 4, 1979. On October 3, 1979, ELUC allowed the appeal. At that point the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), then the Minister of Environment and chairman of ELUC, said that he knew nothing about the application even though he had signed the order to release the land from the ALR. The chairman of the Land Commission at that point: in time said that the Land Commission looks at things technically and the government looks at things politically. Again, that makes me wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the political aspects overshadowed the need to preserve agricultural land.

We went along to October 10, 1979, where we had the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) coming onto the scene. He was the man who professed to have a greater knowledge of the qualities and soil capabilities than the agrologists. He was the man who said: "It was poorly drained; it was rocky and it wouldn't grow anything." Of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was the man who said: "It wouldn't even grow Christmas trees." Certainly those things were in contravention of the things that were being said by the experts in the case.

We got along to October 24, when the Premier came back and said that he wanted ELUC to take a second look. At that point he said he consulted with the then Attorney-General and the Attorney-General advised him that ELUC could do this, but certainly any casual reading of the act would indicate that ELUC can't do it. It can be done by cabinet. Cabinet can add or exclude on its own initiative, and cabinet could certainly have put that land in the reserve, but that didn't happen. It still hasn't happened. I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether or not he was prepared to make such a recommendation to cabinet and I got an answer that he was not prepared to take a knee-jerk reaction. You know, this has been going on a long time and that land is very subject to pressures.

We go on to the fact that the Premier and ELUC decided then to freeze the land, and that's the way it sits until this day. So my question is: has the minister now decided whether or not he is prepared to make some recommendations to the cabinet to ensure that that 626 acres of land is protected? Certainly there have been some rather interesting articles and editorials written in this connection in the province. I have a couple here taken from the Colonist, both of which point to the fact that there is something lacking; there isn't enough public information. In the Province it talks about the whole episode indicating how far we have wandered from the idea of land policy administration by an independent commission. That was the thinking in the mind of the editorial writer of the Province at that point in time. In the Colonist it talks about the introduction of the Land Act as being the most significant thing the New Democratic Party government did in order to protect B.C.'s dwindling supply of land. It goes on to say that we shouldn't be surprised that developers and others constantly nibble at the boundaries of the reserve. The editorial says:

"What is surprising is the system the Bennett government has established for ruling on land appeals. When a landowner wants a property out of the reserve, a government agency with expertise, the B.C. Land Commission, examines the situation, but its rulings can be, in turn, appealed to a committee of cabinet ministers. There's a good case to be made for having politicians take the final decisions, but they are always accountable to the voters."

But there is no case at all for ELUC to have the practice of making this decision without explaining how it has reached its decision.

So the two questions for the minister relative to Gloucester are: has he made a decision to recommend to cabinet that that land be put back into the reserve, and will he tell the House what the reasons were for ELUC making that decision, if he's not prepared to do that? I think we have a right to know that. Certainly it would be to the benefit of that govern-

[ Page 2631 ]

ment if they were more open with the reasons for their decision, because when you take it into the political arena as much as is allowed under section 10(3) or section 9(8), by a direct appeal over a unanimous decision of the Land Commission, and in opposition to the opinions of the people who are really knowledgeable about land....

It was very interesting, really, to note that the evidence that was presented to ELUC on behalf of Gloucester Properties was in fact compiled on the basis of a report which I understand the person who prepared it was not prepared to sign because of the conclusions his employer drew from the information that he had put together. That person went so far as to indicate that one of the directors of Gloucester Properties had asked him to come to that conclusion. When you have those kinds of things out in the public, then certainly if the government is to retain any degree of credibility about the land reserve the minister has to level with us. He has to tell us why this happened — why the decision was made. If it was made for some reason other than the quality of the land, then he has a duty to stand up and tell us that. To make it on the basis that the politicians know more about land capability than agrologists is not really the way to go.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, we dealt with this matter yesterday, and I recall your giving a ruling with regard to the matter before the court. We are now dealing with the decision the committee made in this regard. The matter before the court, as I understand it, deals with both the committee and cabinet in this land in Langley. I wonder whether or not the member is now getting into the area of sub judice.

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

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not going to continue on Gloucester, because I just finished with Gloucester. I've asked my two questions. I'm going on to another point.

This is a rather small area in my own constituency — 60 acres of property. There was an appeal launched with the Land Commission by Doych and Smith to have the property removed from the land reserve. The Land Commission decided that 20 acres along the river could be removed for the purpose of a trailer park or a campsite. The owners weren't satisfied with that. They came back and asked to have the 40 acres also taken out. The Land Commission felt that that was good land. The land down by the river was more gravelly. They said no, but they would allow alternate use for a campsite or trailer site as long as there were no cement pads or anything done that would deteriorate the land.

That would have seemed to be a very fair decision from the Land Commission, but the owners weren't satisfied and they appealed directly to ELUC, on the permission of the minister, as I understand it. They appealed on April 2, and on April 8 that 40 acres was released from the ALR. I would like to ask the minister whether he made a recommendation to cabinet as the minister responsible for the land reserve....

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

MRS. WALLACE: It was 1980. If, in fact, the recommendation was that it should come out, or even if it wasn’t.... If the minister decided against it and ELUC overruled him. then I would like to know why. In three or four working days, why was ELUC able to make that decision over the unanimous and expressed objections of the Land Commission?

Another case I would like to deal with is the Genoa Holdings. This is at Westbank. I'm sure the minister is familiar with that because that's more in his geographical location than mine. That particular company had applied under section 9(7) and then under section 9(2). They were refused by the Land Commission. In this instance it wasn't a 9(8) or a 10(3) — two commissioners did sign. It went to ELUC in 1976 and was turned down. Not being satisfied with that, Genoa Holdings went back again. This, incidentally, was in violation of the community plan, the local zoning and what the regional district was requesting. It just took 15 days to remove 25½ acres of Genoa Holdings by ELUC, in spite of all these other objections. I am wondering again if ~.-.e minister made a recommendation — certainly that is right in his area — to ELUC relative to that. Why was that particular part, which is fairly good. arable land, taken out, and yet 25 acres of marginal land were not taken out?

I think we have some reason to expect that these kinds of decisions, which affect such a vital resource very directly, are justified and that some reasons must be given rather than simply doing it behind closed doors and saying: "Well, that's ELUC's decision. That's it." There has to be some justification.

We go on, then, to another instance. I hope I have the minister's attention. This is Ranchero Diversified Investments in the Pemberton area. This, again was a 9(8) or a 10(3) — a unanimous decision by the Land Commission not to grant the exclusion, yet it went to ELUC on February 12. To the best of my knowledge no decision has come down yet. What I would like the minister to tell me is whether ELUC has reached a decision on this. If so. what is that decision? If not, how soon can we expect a decision regarding that particular holding?

Right in the city of Kelowna there are 723 acres in the Glenmore Valley. This was March 6, 1980. I'm wondering whether or not ELUC has considered that particular ruling. The original request was for something over 1,000 acres. It's now down to 723. Could the minister tell me what the status of that one is? Has he made a recommendation and has it been considered? If so, what is the decision?

One other slightly different item is the Site C Dam — the proposed Hydro dam. I know that this particular minister was formerly the Minister of Energy responsible for B.C. Hydro. Now he's the Minister of Agriculture. I know that there's a very definite division of opinion among people as to whether we should use that valley for energy or whether we should use it for agriculture. I'm on the agriculture side. I think that that particular, very special type of mini-climate there should be preserved — that land that falls within that valley, where the diversity of crops is so great. It's one of the really rare things that we have grade 1 and 2 soil in an area that far north. It's a very important thing, as energy costs rise, to ensure that our food supply is as close to the consumer as possible. Preserving that land is mightily important. I think my question to the minister has to be: as Minister of Agriculture, is he prepared to take a stand opposing the construction of the Site C Dam and opposing the flooding of that very viable farm-

[ Page 2632 ]

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

A final one on the land deals with something quite different — a request for an inclusion. This is the Stikine River Telegraph Creek inclusion that has had the support of everybody: the regional district, the local farm groups, continuing support from the Land Commission — requests to have this included. Somehow cabinet is not prepared to do this. This has been hanging fire for a long time — since December 1978, I think. No, further back than that. December 1976 was the original application. That was for 58,000. On November 25, it went back again and was amended to 41,000 acres. Then in December 1978, it was again applied for — 26,800. You know, they kept reducing it in the hope that the cabinet would act. No action. I would like the minister to tell the House what's happening. There are people who want to put land in the reserve. It's good land; it should be in the reserve. At least that's what all the experts tell us. Yet the cabinet is apparently refusing to do it. I would certainly like the minister to tell us what's behind that particular delay.

Those are my questions about the land reserve.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I was prompted to stand once again in this debate dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission for a number of reasons, including a comment made by the last member who was speaking.

I think the style and procedures we're witnessing constantly from members on the opposite side of the House are interesting. They are making certain statements, which are incorrect, in such a casual way that a casual observer would believe them to be correct. A statement repeatedly made by members opposite, including the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) today, is: "...prior to the amendments in 1977, which allowed direct appeals to cabinet." We heard the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) making a similar comment yesterday, and certainly other members from that side have repeatedly made the comment.

I appreciate that members in this House are responsible for statements made in the House, even if they're incorrect. But I think, perhaps in an informal way, I would very much like that member for Cowichan-Malahat, or any of her colleagues, to at some time produce the amendment which allows direct appeals to cabinet, from 1977 or any other year.

After I spoke last evening, many members of this august body asked me if I might perhaps go over the groundwork once again about this appeal procedure. Members of the press spoke to me last night and asked me if I would run over that procedure once again. For those who may be interested, the amendment of 1977, to which the member referred a moment ago, indeed was an amendment. She quite correctly referred to section 9(8) of the statute prior to revision. That amendment permitted a person who was dissatisfied with the decision of the Agricultural Land Commission on an application for exclusion.... I'm sure the member for Cowichan-Malahat will be able to read this in the Blues....

The amendment permitted a person who was aggrieved by the decision of the Land Commission, being unable to obtain two signatures which would grant leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee, to ask the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission to consider whether leave should be granted to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

A direct appeal to cabinet was permitted in the original bill of 1973. To simplify it perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it was decided with the wisdom of the government of the day that direct appeals to the provincial government should be permitted by a junior government; that is, by a municipality or a regional district — direct appeals to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Also, in the wisdom of the government which brought down the original act, they decided that appeals of Land Commission decisions should be directed at the cabinet. Then, to cover unexpected situations, that government of the NDP also included the right of cabinet on its own to exclude land from an agricultural reserve.

So now, Mr. Chairman, we have the only method of appealing directly to cabinet under the Land Commission Act, or the Agricultural Land Commission Act, as it's now known. That procedure permits selected persons, municipalities, regional districts, the Land Commission or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by way of review by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by order, to exclude lands from an agricultural land reserve. That's the only method in which the cabinet is involved. That was the 1973 legislation which was approved by this House.

The 1977 amendments considering the same problem and under the same section — made some changes, but not in the intent of the act. The revised section says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on his own, or on the application in the prescribed manner of a municipality or a regional district, in respect of land within its jurisdiction, or on the application of the commission, by order, exclude land from a reserve on such terms and conditions as he considers advisable. It is the same procedure, changed in wording perhaps to permit the cabinet to attach conditions to any release not included in the original act, and also to point out that a regional district or municipality could make such an application to a cabinet, but only with respect to land within their jurisdiction. We didn't want the city of Nanaimo making an application for exclusion on behalf of land within the Kamloops municipality. That's how a person may appeal directly to cabinet.

The amendments of 1977 did not affect that except in minor modification of the language, but indeed a problem was presented to this government. The problem, as was illustrated by some of our speakers yesterday, was that citizens of our land for a long period of time have been acquainted with a certain system of justice or natural justice, and the majority of situations suggest to our citizens that when there is an appeal procedure established, no matter for what reason, it would seem contrary to natural justice that the people from whom you are appealing should be those who hear your appeal. The act as it was written — very hastily, I might add — in 1973 required that a person who was turned down for an exclusion application by the Land Commission could then ask the Land Commission to reconsider it.

Well, we have to put ourselves in the position of those members who would be on that commission. Why would they turn it down, if later they wanted to give consideration to allowing the appeal? It seemed to be a bit of a dead end. It was recommended, accepted and enacted that where a person felt aggrieved and could not, by way of application, persuade any two members of the Land Commission that his case should be heard — not by cabinet; by the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, which has its own act — the minister responsible for the act should be in a position where

[ Page 2633 ]

he can hear from the aggrieved person within 30 days and decide if the appeal should be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee, the second government body which may hear appeals — the same body, I might add, which was authorized to hear such appeals in the prescribed manner by the NDP in their act of 1973. So the member for Cowichan-Malahat today suggesting once again, as so many members on that side have, that the act was amended to permit direct appeals to cabinet is absolutely wrong.

I'll reiterate some of the statements which were made yesterday. There are three bodies in the province which have the right to hear appeals with respect to land being excluded from an agricultural land reserve. One body is the Land Commission; they may exclude property on their own, upon application. They may exclude property by way of an application of a citizen or an owner. They may do that on their own.

The second body is the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. An appeal could be offered to them by the Land Commission, by any two members agreeing to such an appeal, or by the minister agreeing to such an appeal. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we, as a legislative assembly, are going to permit any two persons appointed to positions to determine if an appeal should be heard, under certain circumstances, then it's not inconsistent that an elected representative and a man or woman appointed to the position of cabinet minister may also have that capacity to look at a situation to determine whether an appeal is justified.

There are circumstances where an appeal by a citizen, an owner of land, may be heard — not just based on the scientific information which is contained in the original application. It may be that for other reasons an appeal should be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee to clear the air on a specific issue. That is why in some circumstances the Land Commission has permitted certain appeals to go ahead, even though they've turned it down and even though the scientific information had indicated that it was reasonably good quality farmland. In many of those instances, such appeals have been denied by the Environment and Land Use Committee. There can be extenuating circumstances.

The appeal process in British Columbia with respect to this act has been reasonably consistent since 1973. One further extension for the opportunity of granting an appeal has been added, but no further direct appeals to cabinet. There's only one method of direct appeal to cabinet, not by a citizen but by a regional district, a municipality, the Land Commission, or cabinet upon its own, and that requires an order.

The history of the Land Commission is going on to seven or eight years. A great deal of effort and time has gone into the work of the Land Commission, The fine-tuning process has been underway for a number of years, and a great deal of land is being shifted in and out of agricultural land reserves.

The member mentioned Mr. Gary Runka, who was chairman of the Land Commission for a period of time. Mr. Runka has publicly stated many times that there are probably a million acres of land within the agricultural land reserve that should not be in the agricultural land reserve. Mr. Runka has also stated that there are probably a million acres that are not in the agricultural land reserves that should be put in. That's a ballpark figure. The reason is that when the boundaries were drawn originally, it was on an extremely large-scale basis, working from information which was not up to date and, in some cases, not accurate. There were innumerable examples where subdivisions had been developed, homes had been built, but the land mass involved was put in the agricultural land reserve because the information was out of date. The information came from the federal government; it came from some high-level photographic efforts on behalf of those people responsible, and the information was not as up to date as it should have been. Nor was it that practical to be able to get all that information together in a short period of time.

So a great many inequities occurred, and that caused the Land Commission to be in what they refer to as fine-tuning, to try, to go to the field and have a personal look at 11.5 million acres to determine whether they should or should not be in an agricultural land reserve. Much to the chagrin of some of the people employed by the Agricultural Land Commission, very often they found that land which had been put into a reserve had already been utilized for other purposes: residential subdivisions, industrial development, and sometimes other types of commercial development. Well, obviously that land had to come out because there was an imposition on that land in the land registry office which made no sense.

The problem is associated with specifies. I suppose it's politically convenient to point out the failings of the opposite side in any House. We in Richmond went through a period of time with some agricultural land — No. 5 Road in Steveston — and it was almost comical. After the ballyhoo about bringing in this act — which people refer to as the Land Act, but of course it's not the Land Act — I think about 12.5 acres or more on No. 5 Road in Steveston in Richmond, which always had been a farm.... Suddenly ICBC was upon it. They were going to build a big centre on this land in Richmond. "Shocking," we said. All 85,000 people in Richmond said: "Shocking.'' ICBC wanted to build a great big centre right at the end of a major farming area. Well, they got permission to go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: From the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, yes. Well, the directors who are sitting there — I'm not sure, but I think the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was a director at that time....

Nonetheless, that was where it was going to go. Richmond municipal council said: "No, it isn't. You know who's the senior government around here. You know who's responsible for zoning around here, and it doesn't go."

So what happened? ICBC paid $25,000 an acre for the property. Here it is sitting there empty — empty and embarrassing. Someone said: "We've got an idea, let's turn it into 50 garden plots" — allotment gardens, I think they called them, a fancy name — "50 by 50 feet, rent them out to someone for $10 a year, spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars developing the property putting in drainage, water and all the rest of it, and then we can have people go out and have their own little garden." People appreciated that very

[ Page 2634 ]

much, but at $25,000 an acre it was a very expensive experiment. However, it was less embarrassing than seeing the property remain empty.

I'm pleased to report to the House today that the property is no longer empty. Unfortunately it's no longer allotment gardens, although alternative land was found. It is now a botanical gardens and it's going to be a great attraction in Richmond. I'm sorry, Mr. First Member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), it's Monsieur Massot who is putting his botanical gardens together, because he was able to pay a very high price, unfortunately, for agricultural land. Because he had some commercial activities he could make use of it.

But, Mr. Chairman, that land was to have been alienated for an ICBC station, and it was good agricultural land, there's just no question about it. It was in the proximity of Riverside Industrial Park, which had been Howard Wong's farm. Somehow it didn't get into the agricultural land reserve; all the land around it did. But then we heard about that little deal — you give us 40 acres at half price and five or six acres for a park and maybe we won't let the land go in the agricultural land reserve.

But my main concern is that members of this House and members of the public in our province understand that the statements made by members opposite about amendments to the Land Commission Act which permit for the first time, as they so frequently say, appeals to cabinet.... And then these political people in cabinet are making decisions. The first member for Victoria yesterday pleaded that the government should stop making political decisions when it comes to land, indicating once again that this government, for the first time, permitted political people, members of cabinet, to hear appeals. It's incorrect, Mr. Chairman. That authority was granted by the NDP in 1973. It has been retained since that time. The Environment and Land Use Committee was granted authority by the NDP in 1973; that authority has been retained. The Land Commission was granted authority in 1973 by the NDP; that has been retained.

Administering the Land Commission Act is not a simple matter, because we are normally dealing in large numbers, which may mean something to a statistician. We don't often deal in the land itself, the quality of the land. One of the problems associated with that is that you get an argument about the quality of the land depending on whether you're dealing with an agrologist, a pedologist, another soil expert of some kind, or a farmer. A farmer probably knows more about land and its relative usefulness in producing crops than some academics. You can certainly sit down and analyze soil; you can do many things, but the farmer is going to tell you about the day-to-day, season-to- season problems of that land. It's surprising, I guess, to members opposite, but sometimes the farmers know what they're talking about. In fact, most of the time they do. There's still a very large number of enraged people who feel that they simply have not had the opportunity of being heard.

But figures can tell, I suppose, almost any story that you may wish to hear or you may wish others to hear. They talk about exclusions, they talk about inclusions. It's remarkable that in the first five-year history, at least, of the agricultural land reserves in our province, land was taken out and land was placed in — you add, you take away, you redefine, you fine-tune, you alter, you do this, you do that. You started off with 11,661,000 acres. After five years you wound up with 11,635,000 acres — almost the same. It's compensation one way or the other: land is put in, land is taken out. In one year alone, 1978, almost 50,000 acres was included in the agricultural land reserve. The Land Commission, in its fine-tuning methods, recommends land be added and recommends that land be excluded.

One method available to citizens, of which they availed themselves considerably, was to petition a municipality or a regional district to act on their behalf in seeking exclusion of property. They felt it was better to deal with the junior level of government than, in some instances, to deal with the Land Commission. They availed themselves of that. In many instances they were successful in having a municipality or a regional district apply on their behalf. In some instances they were successful in having the land excluded or perhaps permitted for other purposes.

While this debate continues on the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture as the minister responsible for the administration of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, I would like to emphasize once again that, in my opinion at least, it is serving no great purpose to our province or to the citizens to be constantly given false information by members opposite. The people of British Columbia should be advised that there is a method of'direct appeal to the cabinet for exclusion of property from an agricultural land reserve. The list of those who may take advantage of it is limited. But it was introduced by the NDP. It was seen as the right thing to do at that time. It is a direct appeal to cabinet — again introduced by the NDP.

If the opposition is going to constantly suggest to the people in B.C. that amendments in 1977 made that possible, they should either provide the evidence by way of legislation or by way of explanation.

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

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I doubt that the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes to apologize. I think perhaps some members opposite will exhibit something to which we are very familiar, and that is rationalizing why certain opposites are really opposite to even that. They will be able to explain how that amendment meant people can go directly to cabinet. The lawyers can't explain, with due deference to the members of the bar in our House, but she can.

The people of the province, I think — those who are aware that our House is in session and those who are aware of the intricacies of legislation — probably deserve at least to understand, as they peruse Hansard, that just because a member opposite makes a statement does not necessarily mean it's accurate. As a matter of fact, a very informal poll taken would allow a person to have certain confidence that if a member makes a statement on the opposite side of the House, it isn't accurate. That's an informal poll.

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

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

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

[ Page 2635 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I thank the members in the House for their due consideration to my remarks, and I would hope that members opposite, in discussing this legislation, would advise all members of the House and members of the public as to who may have been the author of such appeals directly to political bodies known as cabinet and the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, obviously the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has had some opportunity to bone up on his subject since when he was first appointed Minister of Environment and given responsibility for the Land Commission he said he could't understand why he got it since he didn't know anything at all about it. He has had a chance to rehearse some notes since that date.

He talks so wildly about 11 million acres of ALR land in the province. What he forgets to mention is that the three critical areas — the Okanagan Valley, the Fraser Valley and the Saanich Peninsula — have in total only 800,000 acres. The rest of it is scattered around the province. By far most of it is class 4, 5 and even some 6 land that is rangeland. When the former manager and the former chairman of the Land Commission, Gary Runka, talked about the need of taking some one million acres out, he was talking about the land that is not good agricultural land but is rangeland that was put in there to protect it for range purposes only and really doesn't fit the definition of ALR land.

For 20 years the Social Credit government in this province did absolutely nothing to protect farmland, although we were losing the best acreage at the rate of 20,000 acres a year. For the last five of those years the Department of Agriculture did everything to persuade the government that something had to and should be done.

When I arrived in office as Minister of Agriculture, I found out that the department had indeed been working on a program to preserve agricultural land. It got as far as the Minister of Agriculture of those days, Cyril Shelford, who is no longer a member in this House, going to cabinet with a proposal that something be done. The Premier of the clay thought this would be great politics and brought in the Environment and Land Use Act and didn't even put the Minister of Agriculture on that cabinet committee. That's how little he thought of preserving agricultural land in those days.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) told us that the boundaries were set very loosely and carelessly with no real thought going into it except some very old information supplied by the Canada Land Inventory. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs either doesn't know or doesn't bother to mention that it took 18 months to establish most of those reserves. There were extensive public hearings in every one of the regional districts in the province, and lots of time, thought and care went into the preparation of those plans. Certainly there were some lands included, and there were some excluded. To talk about a million acres as being important.... They were not important from the context of saving agricultural land. There was plenty of opportunity for everybody in the province who wanted to bother to appear before those public hearings and make known his position with respect to preserving agricultural land.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talked about the details in the way in which the program has worked, but he hasn't talked about the philosophy. He forgot to mention, for example, that when the NDP administration established the first commission, they picked people who were known provincially as having some interest in preserving agricultural land in the province. All of the names were widely respected in the whole province and all of them were well known. Those commissioners were fired under this government when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was Minister of Environment and had responsibility. Those commissioners were fired and were replaced in part with people who were known best for the way in which they had opposed the Agricultural Land Commission Act from the very beginning.

The member of the Land Commission who represents the Okanagan area — or at least lives in the Okanagan area — was one of the most vociferous and active opponents of the whole idea of preserving agricultural land on the day he was elected and, to the best of my knowledge, still is the one who fought in the Land Commission for subdivision of the fruit orchards in the Okanagan Valley, although the fruit growers themselves defeated a resolution at their annual meetings three years in a row, urging that there be greater subdivision to remove the homesight. Nevertheless, that person was put on the commission because it was known that he was opposed to saving agricultural land. It was hoped that he would hurry up and get rid of the agricultural land and the government wouldn't be faced with this embarrassment any longer. That's the only reason. It was the only qualification he had. He was a wild opponent of the whole idea, so they said: "Let's put him on.'' To my knowledge, he's been working in that direction ever since.

Obviously, this government was following the advice of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier of the province when he said: "Elect us and, in effect, we'll get rid of the Agricultural Land Commission. We'll turn the power back to the regional districts and let them have the same power that they had before 1972 when we were losing our best agricultural land at the rate of 20,000 acres a year." This government has no interest in saving agricultural land. All the details about changing the legislation don't really mean anything. The government obviously changed the legislation so that it could get rid of the best of the agricultural land more quickly. At the same time they were talking about the gross acreage that was coming in, largely in the Peace River area, and it doesn't really matter whether they're included in the land reserve or not., because there's no subdivision pressure on them. This government doesn't believe in preserving agricultural land, in spite of the speech by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and this government is proving it by its every action.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I always enjoy it when the former Minister of Agriculture gets exercised and gets up in the House and expounds on his efforts. The only thing I can say is the Ministry of Agriculture is one of the most important ministries and industries in this province. That Minister of Agriculture got demoted to Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, and that, I feel, is a mark against him.

Interjection.

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

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

[ Page 2636 ]

man, who serves as a commissioner on the Land Commission, Mr. Allan Claridge, of Oyama. The former Minister of Agriculture knows full well that the reaction of Mr. Claridge to the original Bill 42 — I believe it was called — was to the original bill and to the fact that the previous administration was not looking for protection of agricultural land under that original Bill 42, but basically control of land in the province of British Columbia due to the socialism that they were preaching. That former Minister of Agriculture knows very well the dedication of the man that he has so viciously attacked in this House. He knows full well that the man who works on the Land Commission and has served very well on that Land Commission is very concerned about the protection of agricultural land in this province.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: He was concerned about the original bill, and that former Minister of Agriculture also knows full well that with the reaction of the total agricultural community, and with the stand that this party took as opposition, the bill was amended and brought in as much less than what they had originally intended.

MRS. WALLACE: And how did you vote?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wasn't here at the time, Madam Member, but I just want to make it clear on the record that the man the former Minister of Agriculture refers to is a man who was concerned then and is concerned now about the preservation of agricultural land, but certainly didn't want to see land become state property or state controlled and the farmer become a tenant of the state.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to some of the other comments that were made, I referred to these previously during a number of times I've been on my feet during this debate, and I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs very adequately covered the amendments to the act and the methods of appeal under the original act. I think he set the record very clear in regard to what has been done with those amendments, and what the procedures are. Political decisions are not made, but basically the amendment gives the opportunity and the right to a property-owner to appeal a decision of the Land Commission.

I said in previous comments I've made that the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate is the preservation of agricultural land. The members opposite also know that two of the commissioners under their legislation had the ability to grant the right of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The act was changed to still allow them to do that, but the minister also could allow that right of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The basic reason was that ELUC can look at the total picture with regard to that land, as opposed to the narrow mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission, which deals specifically with agricultural capability. So it allowed the right of appeal, which was already there, only two commissioners have to approve it, and the amendment allowed for them to come to the minister for that right of appeal, rather than just go back to the court that in effect had made a previous decision.

In regard to the question that was raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, she knows full well, I think, why the property at Langley has not been dealt with at the present time — the Agricultural Land Commission hasn't held hearings or done any of the work on it, and there's nothing that can be done on this particular issue until the court case is finalized and the statement has been made by the judge in regard to this case that nothing can proceed with this until the case is dealt with in the court.

The member makes reference to a number of specific appeals. I don't have the details of those appeals before me, but I will refer you to, again, the comments I've made on previous occasions during these estimates where, at an appeal, the appellant appears before the committee, along with his agrologist, if he has one, who has done a study on the land. The land commissioners and staff members and agrologists appear in regard to the Land Commission's position. In some instances the regional district and-or municipality appear before the committee. After all that information is heard then the Environment and Land Use Committee determines its decision as to whether to grant the appeal or not.

The members opposite lead you to believe that nobody has any input into that committee; all we do is sit around a table and make a political decision. Again I repeat for the record that that is not the case. Nor was it the case, I guess, when the Environment and Land Use Committee dealt with appeals prior to the change in legislation, or prior to the change of administration. They had input from all sides — from both the person who was aggrieved and from the Land Commission. So nothing has changed, Mr. Chairman, and I get somewhat concerned when they deal with the political reference in their comments.

In regard to Site C, the member opposite knows there is concern about agricultural land. There is also concern in this province about energy requirements and the determination with regard to Site C in the Peace River country will be determined in due course with regard to what is in the public interest.

In regard to the land in, I believe, the Stikine-Telegraph Creek area, there are some 26,800 acres — I am not sure of the percentage that is involved here — of which I would suggest probably well in excess of 90 percent is Crown land. Also, in many cases in that area land has forest reserves on it as well. So it isn't.... These people are requesting it as property owners. It is Crown land and has considerable protection at the present time. It doesn't have the encroachment of urban development in certain areas that the former Minister of Agriculture referred to.

The matter of fine-tuning is ongoing and will continue to proceed in this province with regard to better identifying what land should be in and what land shouldn't be in. The former Minister of Agriculture refers to three areas: the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and Saanich. Of course he forgot the fourth, which I guess has the major portion of agricultural land, the Peace River country.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've touched on the items that the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke about. The comments made by the former Minister of Agriculture were just, I feel, in response to the excellent presentation made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his answers, except that he hasn't given me any answers. Relative to this business about the act, it gave the minister who introduced that act — the minister before the minister before the minister who brought that act in — an opportunity to stand here and attempt to justify something that he knows is

[ Page 2637 ]

very unpopular. If there isn't something wrong with sections 9(8)(b) or 13(2), if he wants a reference, then why is it that the B.C. agrologists are asking that that be repealed? Why is it that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the United Church, the Women's Institutes, the chamber of commerce, and the Canadian Consumers' Association are asking that that be repealed? Why is it that editorial comments in the Province and the Colonist are asking the same thing?

You know, there is a real move out there. I suspect that that minister knows it, and he came into this House and attempted to twist the facts and say it was already there in an attempt to justify his own particular piece of legislation — that the second minister who was responsible has made public statements about to indicate that he doesn't approve of it. I think that that, Mr. Minister, is something that you have to look at, and you're going to have to take a position and a stand. You can't just back off it like that. I also think that when appeals come under that section, it's the obligation of the cabinet and ELUC to give some explanation as to why those decisions are made, because if they don't do that they're certainly subject to political interference.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond, because I guess if there was a political approach as to how you attempt to, as the Leader of the Opposition says, "twist the comments...." The legislation was brought into this House by the former Minister of Environment, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and was passed in this House. Ever since that time the opposition has done one thing; they even produced a brochure which they circulated in the whole Fraser Valley just to say that the Social Credit government was black topping the Fraser Valley. That's political, and we can live with that; I can live with that. But when you twist the comments that you make.... You know full well, Madam Member, what was in that act before it was amended. You know full well what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.... Those members opposite know, but they're being political and they ignore that.

They come out and say that these specific areas should be changed because they are an injustice. They attempt to point out to people — people who are dedicated in their own way and people who are concerned and people who don't have the time and can't make the effort to look back in history and see what the facts are, and as a result they say: "Yes. what I'm being told sounds reasonable, and this is a big change, and I want to protect agricultural land...." So when she mentions all these bodies which are coming forward and saying that the act should be changed, it's because of — I'll grant — the opposition; it's because of the pretty good job you've done in attempting to sell that particular change in the administration. But they know full well, Mr. Chairman, that the appeals to the Environment and Land Use Committee were there, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says. So what I have to do as Minister of Agriculture and minister responsible for the Land Commission Act is to go out to the chamber of commerce, the Federation of Agriculture, the many other groups, and say to whatever group it is. "Here is the rationale behind it," which I've done. Mr. Chairman, in many instances I've been able to show the picture in its total reality, and the people say: "Oh, well, I guess all this information we've been getting has been a little bit biased."

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, the minister may rationalize all he likes, but one person he was not able to rationalize successfully was the former chairman and manager of the Land Commission, Gary Runka, who resigned because he couldn't take it any longer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again the member for Nanaimo is being a good politician. He also knows full well that the former chairman of the Land Commission had resigned as chairman.... He had served on a temporary basis, and then at the opportune time for him determined that he was going to resign on the particular issue. The member for Nanaimo knows that.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You were yawning.

MR. KING: Yes, I was yawning when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were giving their dissertations because I thought they were rather tedious.

One thing that did amuse me was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs pontificating in this House and condescending to explain to this Legislature all of the nuances of administrative law and natural justice. That was very kind of him because only the hotliners know. I know that Pat Burns and Ed Murphy and the current minister are the ones that appreciate all those nice little nuances of administrative law.

He held that it was completely wrong that an appeal should be launched against the Agricultural Land Commission's decision back to the agency making that decision. He held that this was a denial of natural justice. Were it in the criminal sphere, that would be the case. But we're not dealing with criminal law. We're dealing with administrative law. I want to tell you that that government, at the current moment, is sitting silently on its hands presiding over other agencies which pursue that policy identically. The Labour Relations Board of the province of British Columbia has a policy of hearing appeals made back to the board against decisions. There is no other agency with any appeal to the cabinet over decisions made by that administrative agency. The board makes the decision, the board hears the appeals, and the board rules on the appeals. So for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to get up and say, "Well, it's a denial of natural justice when it comes to presiding over appeals on farmland and the exclusion of farmland," is totally inconsistent and a ruse and a red herring. It makes no sense.

The basic difference between the appeal that was allowed under the New Democratic Party government in this province and the one that is available now, due to be amendment of 1977, is the fact that the land-owner or the real estate promoter, having been turned down from having land excluded from the agricultural land reserve, is entitled to appeal directly to the minister — a politician. That was not the case under the NDP. He had to, first of all, obtain the agreement of two of the land commissioners. He had to have the basis for some further appeal, either new evidence or some subject matter that had not been considered and dealt with in the original decision before the commission. That's not a new thing in

[ Page 2638 ]

law either. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows that there are precedents for that kind of approach to appeals, particularly in administrative law. To suggest that it was really the same men misses the essential point that under the New Democratic Party provisions, the land speculators and the real estate brokers could not make an end-run around the Land Commission and appeal directly to their friends at the cabinet level to make a political judgment as to whether the land shall be removed or not. That's the issue. The politicians on that side can try to mask it, they can try to submerge it, they can try to rationalize it all they want. They can say: "Your attack is a political one."

But I want to tell you that the chairman of the Regional District of Columbia Shuswap is no NDPer. I want to read into the record what the chairman of the regional board for the district of Columbia Shuswap had to say about the current method of hearing appeals against the exclusion of agricultural land in the province. This letter appeared in the Salmon Arm Observer on January 18, 1978, and it was directed to the minister. I'm going to read it verbatim into the record of the Legislature for the edification of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and this is not a partisan thing:

"Dear Sir:

"I have received a copy of your letter dated December 22, 1977, to Mr. N.F. Putnam, in which you advise Mr. Putnam that his appeal to the ELUC on behalf of Seymour Arm Estates Ltd. for the complete removal of approximately 423.63 acres from the Seymour Arm agricultural land reserve has been approved. Even with the qualifications attached to the approval, I consider the decision regrettable.

"I realize that the Land Commission Act allows no further appeal. However, since this decision may be expected to have an important effect on attitudes towards the Land Commission Act, especially in the Shuswap area, I am anxious to appreciate the reasoning behind it.

"No appeal from this region has stirred so much public interest or provoked as much public comment as has this appeal. The considerable amount of time and effort expended by our regional board and by the British Columbia Land Commission in trying to reach a fair and balanced decision on this appeal is quite broadly appreciated. Also appreciated is the surprising speed with which the appeal to the ELUC was arranged and the fact that the hearing on December 6 was permitted all of 25 minutes. In the face of these facts, an unfortunate side-effect from the decision is the damage it does to the already shaky credibility of both the regional district concept and the Land Commission. A logical explanation of the ELUC ruling is therefore most important.

"When I learned of the ELUC decision, I regretted more than ever my unsuccessful attempt to attend the hearing in Victoria on December 6. I assume that you were informed of my telephone call from Kamloops to your secretary, advising that I was grounded there en route. I assume also that my stated intention to support the Land Commission ruling was read into the record of the hearing. I understand that although our MLA, Mr. Len Bawtree, did not attend the hearing, he would normally be given an opportunity to be heard before the decision. I feel, that, in view of my stated and sincere regret at not being able to reach Victoria in time, in view of the circumstances surrounding my inability to get there, and in view of the importance of this appeal to this area, I might have been accorded the same privilege.

"This removal of some 424 acres from the Seymour Arm ALR leaves approximately 1,200 acres of privately owned land remaining within that ALR. It is therefore only reasonable to expect that the precedent in this decision will prompt further appeals not only from Seymour Arm but also from other parts of the Shuswap area.

"If the considerable amount of time and effort which we put into the Seymour Arm Estates appeal produced an unacceptable ruling, you will be able to understand the importance of us discovering where we went wrong or what we overlooked.

"The regional board recommendation to the Land Commission was preceded by numerous trips into the area, by a private hearing in the regional office — which I accorded a delegation from Seymour Arm Estates, including the president, their counsel, the accountant, and also Mr. Len Bawtrec, MLA — a subsequent hearing of the Seymour Arm Estates group by the regional board, careful study of the Seymour Arm Estates brief, equally careful study of a brief from the Seymour Arm Resident Ratepayers Association, in addition to a number of private written submissions from residents of the area, review of all available technical opinion of the potential of the area, study of a very detailed report from federal Fisheries on the importance of the Seymour River as a spawning stream, and a review of as much of the history of the area as we were able to gather from discussions and old literature, I presented all of this information to the Land Commission in person, in addition to making myself available for questioning.

"The Land Commission ruling on our regional board recommendation benefited from yet another and more detailed appreciation of the area by Mr. N.A. Gough, professional agrologist and pedologist, and a final hearing of Seymour Arm Estates Ltd. Although the Land Commission ruling was more liberal than the regional board recommendation, we were able to reconcile it with our understanding of the philosophy and intent of the Land Commission Act. In other words, it was not inconsistent with the attitude toward the Land Commission Act which the regional board has been attempting to maintain.

"Now it appears that throughout the whole long process of assessing the Seymour Arm Estates appeal both the regional board and the Land Commission must have overlooked some very important considerations, or else there has been a significant change in the attitude of your ministry toward the Land Commission Act. I respectfully seek to be informed.

"I must comment on the item numbered 33 in the material concerning this appeal which was supplied to the ELUC by the Land Commission. This is a letter to Mr..G. Sorenson, president, Seymour Arm Estates Ltd., from Dr. A.F. McLean, chairman, Seymour Area Property Owners Association. I am not sure of the significance of the change in title., When I was advised of the organization of this group in January

[ Page 2639 ]

1977 the title was Seymour Arm Property Owners Association. This association was apparently organized in Calgary in January 1977 and immediately claimed to represent the views of some 140 property owners in the Seymour area.

"While I accepted this claim by Dr. McLean and Mr. Sorenson, I asked Dr. McLean, on two occasions in writing and once verbally, for some information on the organization. I desired to know the names of the other members of the executive, a list of the membership and a copy of the constitution. To date I have not been honoured with even an acknowledgment of my request. I did not, and I do not, consider it inappropriate to ask for this proof of legitimacy, especially since Dr. McLean has given notice that he intends to claim the same weighty voice in forthcoming meetings and hearings on a settlement plan for the Seymour area.

"In the meantime, the one letter which I have received from a non-resident property owner is quite opposed to Dr. McLean's point of view concerning development of the area.

"If the ELUC were satisfied as to the legitimacy of the association which Dr. McLean claims to represent, I shall be pleased to be informed of this too.

Yours respectfully,
F.H. Clarke,
Director, Electoral Area 'F',
Columbia-Shuswap
Regional District."

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the case is clearly spelled out there. This man, Mr. Clarke, whom I happen to know personally as a dedicated, hard-working, duly elected public servant and who, as far as I know, owes political allegiance to no one, was doing the job that he was elected to do: trying to protect farmland within the parameters of the law. He had the rug pulled out from under him and his regional district board, as the Land Commission had the rug pulled out from under them. And when they approached the ministry seeking the reasons for the political decision over the heads of those duly appointed agencies, they received silence.

So is it any wonder that we on this side of the House, in addition to the community at large, look askance when this government say they are dedicated in any way to the preservation of farmland? When we hear the Minister of Agriculture get up and suggest that those terrible socialists over there never wanted to preserve farmland but were out to control the land — what utter nonsense! What claptrap! What desperation, Mr. Chairman, grasping at straws! He makes that charge against our little government while the current Social Credit bogus free enterprise government sits there in ownership and control of 90 percent of the forest land of the province of British Columbia. What do you say about that, Mr. Minister? Okay for Socreds, but really dangerous if it's anyone else. What nonsense! What humbug! What a diversion! If you cannot contribute anything more intelligent to the debate than that kind of ruse, then I say you have failed sadly as a Minister of Agriculture in the province. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, he has failed in his test as a frontbencher in political debate in this forum. That's why he's on the back bench, and I imagine he'll remain there.

There are a couple of other things that I wanted to comment on. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said there may be other reasons. He said: ''The Land Commission's mandate is very narrow." The Minister of Agriculture echoed it too: a very narrow mandate. They just have to look at the productivity of the land in terms of its agricultural potential, and there may be other considerations besides the scientific ones. Naturally we should have known that. because Social Credit historically has been biased against the scientific and the intellectual anyway. even though they did allow one Liberal in who had some qualifications in that regard. They've had an inherent suspicion of professionals: politicians know best.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to accept that reasoning, provided that it is accompanied by a written statement of the reasons. This guy who gets up and pontificates about natural justice.... My God, one of the fundamental tenets of natural justice is that when you're convicted or when you're affected by an adjudicative decision you have a right to know the basis upon which that decision was formulated. Isn't that right? Does anyone over there deny that? If you believe in what you're saying, if you believe that there are broader and higher reasons, have the guts and have the gumption to put them down on paper so that the people out there can understand what your philosophy is and where you're going, and so that there can be some requirement for consistency in the decisions that are made, rather than political whim.

That's the issue here. If you happen to know someone in the cabinet, perhaps you have a loud voice. But if you're a small individual farmer and you have no political clout, then the chance of your getting the same kind of ear and the same kind of action are pretty remote. If that is not the case, all the minister has to do is give an undertaking to file, along with every decision made, a written, public statement of the reasons upon which that decision was founded. What's wrong with that?

I recall introducing into this House, as the Minister of Labour, a statute called the Labour Code of British Columbia. I remember being attacked by the Socreds. This little guy in the front bench with the hysterical voice who gets going in high dudgeon from time to time said it was the most terrible, retrograde statute that had ever been introduced, simply because the board had all-embracing, all encompassing powers. I want to tell you that I would trust and I would respect an arm's-length, quasi-judicial agency to make decisions, fair and impartial, affecting the people of British Columbia. long before I would ever respect and accept the political whim of that cabinet over there. I would respect that, and I would defend that right for that kind of arm's-length, quasi-judicial decision.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't judge all politicians by yourself.

MR. KING: I would be very happy to do that, because I'm not ashamed.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I am prepared to tender to the minister a gold-edged invitation to come up and speak in my constituency, because I need the votes. I think if they ever see that minister put on one of his performances up there....

[ Page 2640 ]

Interjection.

MR. KING: I don't know whether that's a threat or not, but I want to tell you, in the last provincial election I had nine people from that cabinet, including the Premier, up there campaigning against me. So I guess I shouldn't be too intimidated by sending along that little minister, the voice from the north. I can tolerate that.

In the final analysis, it's clear from the letter I've read into the record of this House that the choice farmland base is being eroded in this province. It's clear that political clout is playing a role in the decision-making on the release of that agricultural land. This is the conclusion of people at the administrative level. It's the conclusion of the chambers of commerce, the United Church and all the other signatories to that petition submitted to the government last year, expressing their concern at the surreptitious release, based on political consideration, of choice farmland in this province. That's the issue. That was never allowed under the NDP government. We were the architects of the first statutory protection of farmland in this province.

These people lack the courage now in government, even though they opposed it and voted against it at that time, to stand up and say: "We're still opposed to it." They sneak around the back door and chip away at it in the secrecy and security of their little cabinet chambers. That's what they do, and that's the issue that'll come back to haunt them in the months ahead.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to go back through history in regard to applications, under sections 9(l), 9(2), 9(7) and then 9(8), the Land Commission, when it came into being.... Land reserves, when they came into being, of course, had to have adjustments to them. Let me give you 9(l) and the number of applications. In 1974 there were 10; in 1975 there were 28; in 1976 there were 27; in 1977 there were 28; in 1978 there were 27; and in 1979 there were 13. Massive applications coming in for exclusion? I think not.

MR. SKELLY: What acreage?

HON. MR. HEWITT: We can get to that, Mr. Member, but I just want to point out to the House just how the remarks that are made by the opposition....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to get these figures on record. I don't care what they're commenting across the floor, because I can get onto the acreage if they would like, as well. I've told this House what the acreage was when you first made that designation in 1973 and what it is today. Out of 11,661,000 it's down to 11 629,000 acres, I believe — a very small percentage in total.

Let's go into the section 9(2) applications. In 1974 there were 360; in 1975 there were 463; in 1976 there were 294; in 1977 there were 295; in 1978 there were 332; and in 1979 there were 99.

The requests for leave to appeal in regard to section 9(7), under the old act, Madam Member: in 1974 there were 21; in 1975 there were 9; in 1976 there were 14; in 1977 there were 14; in 1978 there were 30; and in 1979 there were 39. Those are requests for leave to appeal that were in the old act, and still are in the new act under section 9(7). They are appeals put forward by two commissioners of the Land Commission and decisions made in regard to the Environment and Land Use Committee reviewing them. In 1974 and 1975 — and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has now left — ELUC, in making their decision, didn't grant the appellant the reason for their decision; it was either a yea or a nay, the same as it is today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member wishes the 9(8)s. Mr. Chairman, I only respond to the comments made by the members opposite because they would lead you to believe that there has been serious political interference in this act. Basically they've been shown otherwise, I think, by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his excellent presentation in this House.

In regard to the 9(8)s, we had ten requests in 1978. Out of those ten in 1978, there were four acres excluded. I believe those four acres excluded as a 9(8) appeal happened to come out of the Cowichan Valley. I'm not sure whether the member over in Cowichan Valley had an influence on that or not.

In 1979 there were 22 requests to appeal to the ELUC, and 12 were granted. Out of the ones heard by ELUC, six were approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that include the Langley one?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I don't believe it does, Mr. Member. This is the latest statistical report, and it was as of March 31, 1979. I believe the Langley one was after that.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to go back to some statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because I think he left the House with the wrong impression as to how the appeal procedure operates under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I think I have some ability to do this, because I was the debate leader on the bill when the minister brought it down in 1977.

We did not oppose all the sections in that bill. In fact, we saw some of the sections as an improvement in the way the Agricultural Land Commission was to be administered; for example, the requirement to hold public hearings before lands were excluded or deleted on the request of municipalities. We also saw an advantage in that the minister, under that bill, gave the Land Commission the ability to enforce their statute. In other words, they could inspect people's property, and if they had been violating the statute they could take them to court, or fine them, or whatever.

The one section that we opposed in that bill brought down in 1977 was the creation of not a new appeal body but a new appeal procedure. Now the minister, in making his comments, distorted what the people on the other side of the House had said. He said that we were talking about the Social Credit government creating a new political appeal group. Nothing is further from the truth, and the minister knew that when he made the statement. What we were talking about was a new political procedure to grant leave to appeal to cabinet. The cabinet appeal system was already in effect. The ELUC system was already in effect. But there was no political leave to appeal to either of those groups.

For example, Mr. Chairman — and you're a lawyer

[ Page 2641 ]

you know that under the Water Act a citizen aggrieved by a decision of, say, the comptroller of water rights can appeal to cabinet. We have never objected to that appeal procedure, although some lawyers have and it's in doubt at this moment. Under the Pollution Control Act there is a procedure whereby citizens can appeal a decision of the Pollution Control Board directly to cabinet, as they've recently done in Keremeos and as they've recently done in Esquimalt. The citizens have taken an appeal to cabinet to try to reverse a decision of the Pollution Control Board.

In establishing the Agricultural Land Commission we stated that a citizen who was aggrieved with a decision of the Land Commission could go to the Commission and seek some form of redress, to have their land taken out of the reserve or to have the use allowed on their property to be changed and to remain within the reserve. If he was aggrieved with the decision of the Land Commission and if two commissioners felt that there was some merit in the case to carry it on to a political body — cabinet — then he was entitled to do so on the authority of those two commissioners. We had no objection to the fact that that body which would hear the final appeal was a political body. But when the Minister of Environment of the day changed the statute to allow political leave to appeal, that was when we objected, that was when the United Church objected, that was when the B.C. Federation of Agriculture objected, that was when all of these groups objected, because the ticket to get an appeal to cabinet had been changed. The Land Commission could only judge based on two criteria: the quality of agricultural land and the integrity of the agricultural reserve. Those were the only two bases on which they could make their decision, and as far as we could see through the whole term of the Land Commission, those are the bases on which they operated. If there was a question of some doubt and if there was merit for a further appeal, then two of those commissioners could say: "Fine, go on ahead to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet."

The Environment and Land Use Committee cannot make a ruling outside the terms of the act. The act only provides that the Environment and Land Use Committee can make a decision based on the act itself. Quality of farmland and the integrity of the reserve are the only two criteria under which an appeal is allowed under the Land Commission Act. But we have a new procedure now for getting into cabinet, and that is what we were concerned about. The minister distorted our expression of that concern for his own purposes. I challenge you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture to read through Hansard for the last few days of this debate and find out precisely what our members said. They said it wasn't the fact that there was a political appeal available to these people; it was the fact that there was a political avenue of appeal.

Say I wanted to take my land out of the agricultural land reserve — and my land is in the agricultural land reserve. I would go to the Land Commission and I would say I had a subdivision application on this property and I'd like to take it out of the reserve, I'd like to make a capital gain of, say, $1 million or something. The Land Commission would take a look at the quality of my land and they'd take a look at the agricultural reserve surrounding it and they would say: "No. Your land is of high agricultural quality. If we took your land out of the reserve it would break up the integrity of the reserve. Therefore we disallow it." Now say two of the commissioners would say: "Well, Skelly, you've got a big gravel pit out on the front yard there. It may be possible to subdivide that, and it's on the edge of the reserve. Go ahead." ELUC could then make a decision that yes, it is a gravel pit and yes, it is on the edge of the reserve and in this special case we'll take it out. But say my land is No. 1 quality Canada Land Inventory farmland. And say my land is right in the middle of the agricultural land reserve of the Nanaimo Regional District. I go to the land commissioners and they say: "No way. You're not having any subdivision on that reserve."

HON. MR. CHABOT: How much?

MR. SKELLY: Ten acres.

They say: "You're not going to take that land out, because it's pure agricultural land and it's right in the middle of the reserve. You can't do it because our criteria say that's what we have to make our judgment on." But I could go-to — it was Rafe Mair at the time, I think — and I'd say: "Mr. Mair" — I'm talking about some time in the past, but the member for Kamloops....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a bit of an assumption, isn't it?

MR. SKELLY: No, because the member for Kamloops handed them out like popcorn; and we all know that you don't hand out popcorn at the theatre, you sell it.

But, Mr. Chairman, say I went to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and I said to the minister: "My land is class 1; it's right in the middle of the reserve. Those land commissioners refuse to grant me leave to appeal to cabinet, so your boys aren't able to deal with it. Here's my Social Credit Party card." And the minister would say: "Oh, you do have some justification to go to a cabinet appeal, because some of your friends are up there." And that's what we objected to about this leave to appeal — that the land commissioners are only allowed to make a decision based on the quality of the land and the integrity of the reserve; but the minister, if you flash your party card to him, has other ideas.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That happened in your administration, but it doesn't happen in this one.

MR. SKELLY: We did not have that appeal section when we were in office, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. That is precisely what we're talking about in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman — the fact that there was no political avenue of appeal. That's what we're concerned about, and that was the argument by our members that that member opposite distorted in making his suggestions that we were opposing the fact that cabinet was hearing appeals and that the Environment and Land Use Committee was hearing appeals.

I'd just like to clarify that for the people who read Hansard and for the people in the gallery. We have been misled in this House by that minister in making those statements. He has either misinterpreted or purposefully misread the statements made by our members on this side of the House about that appeal procedure, and I would not like to let that statement go without explanation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni has indicated that the Minister

[ Page 2642 ]

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was misleading the House. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member asks for a withdrawal.

MR. SKELLY: I understand I can't accuse the minister of lying or misleading the House. I don't know of any other way to do it, but I will withdraw the way I did it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a couple of simple questions from a simple....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say that, you did. You're going to get into trouble with your own cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get the minister's attention for a couple of simple questions from a humble member, who is uncomplicated by all the political jargon around this debate. I want to go back to the 626 acres in Langley that were raised in the House yesterday, with the reference to the minutes of the meeting discussing this. As the minister knows, the agricultural land reserve governed by the commission included the 626 acres. An appeal was made and the 626 acres were excluded. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Correct. This is a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the presentations were made, where the minister spoke sage words. The land was removed. There was a public outcry against what happened. The Premier, responding to the demands of democratic citizens, said that he would like to see the land put back in. The leader of all of British Columbia, the Premier of this province, said he'd like to see the land put in. Will the minister tell me if he's going to make any effort to have that acreage put back into the agricultural land reserve? Would the minister tell me that, please? That's the first humble question to the minister. Will the minister be taking the instruction of the Premier and putting that land back into the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you got another question?

MR. BARRETT: No. Is that one difficult?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, let's deal with that — one at a time. We're getting close.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I thought the Leader of the Opposition had two questions when he got up. I was waiting for him to ask the second one as well.

If I recall, the Premier, in making the statement regarding the 626 acres, indicated that we would take a second look. The Leader of the Opposition will also recall that I advised that the Land Commission would have some soil analysis taken of the land involved and would proceed with hearings, etc., and then make a recommendation to cabinet. That procedure was to be followed if.... Again recalling accurately, the judge involved with the court case made the statement that there should be no proceeding by the Land Commission while the case was before the court. That is the situation as it now stands.

MR. BARRETT: Is it the intention, after the court proceedings are over, to have that land preserved in the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, not to prejudge what the decision of the court will be, I would assume that once the matter has been dealt with in the court the Land Commission will carry out its soils analysis and public hearings and then make its recommendation to cabinet as to whether all, part or none is included in the land reserve at the present time. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is frozen by an order-in-council.

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister notified the owners of the property that regardless of the outcome of the court, hearings will be held and that soil tests will take place on this land, as you have just announced now? Have you notified the owners of the property that it is the intention of the government to act in that manner?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister replies, the Chair would observe that I think we're approaching some thin ice on the question of a matter before the courts. The Chair would be of the view that any question to the minister asking the minister what the government might or might not do administratively with the subject matter of a law suit once the court has made a determination is a question that should not be answered.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I'm always so careful. That is why I ask this question: has the minister notified the owners of the property in writing of the statement he has just made that he intends to have the Land Commission do further soil tests and conduct public hearings on that property before a final decision is made? That's what you just said; I'm repeating what you said. I'm now asking you: have you notified the owners of Gloucester estates that that is the intention of the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to respond. But as I understood the question by the Leader of the Opposition, it refers to an historical action — "have you notified?" — about a future intention. I think, again, we're on very thin ice.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I don't even have skates on. The minister has already gone over the edge; I'm only repeating what he said. I appreciate the legal direction that is so excellently handled from the Chair today with the assistance of able staff. I want to say this chairperson needs no assistance. Skills, fortitude and patience are already being displayed. Having said that, please don't butt in.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm asking the minister is....

He just finished making the statement that it is the government's policy that there will be further soil tests and public hearings on the 625 acres and that there's presently a freeze on the land. You said it. It's committed to Hansard. I don't want to talk about the court case or His Honour the judge. I want to ask you this: have you notified Gloucester estates in writing that it is the government's intention to have further soil tests and public hearings on this land when the court case is over?

[ Page 2643 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to make a correction, Mr. Chairman. It's 626 acres, not 625 as the Leader of the Opposition comments. That's a correction for Hansard.

MR. BARRETT: I think I said 626. I thank you for correcting me.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're welcome.

The other is that in my comments previously I did make the statement that I would not want to prejudge the court decision. Secondly, my comments regarding "the second look" are public knowledge; it was a public statement made by myself as Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Land Commission. I would not want to comment further because the case is before the court.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for correcting me on the statement of 625 acres. If I said 625, I want to humbly apologize, because my whole political career might be sacrificed by me making that error. You might use it against me. It's 626 acres.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You need help, I know.

MR. BARRETT: From everywhere. And I'm not too egotistical to say that I can't receive some help from someone. I thank the minister. Humility never hurt me. It wouldn't hurt the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith); he already made a major gaffe. What is the next closest religious holiday when I can offer up another prayer for my friend from South Peace River? It's a long time since you've been up there. They're looking for you up there.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you protect me, please, from unwarranted interruptions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister this question, as I understand him correctly about the 626 acres. We want to get his estimates through, because he's a busy man.

You've said that you've said publicly that there's going to be a second look. Is that right? Did I hear that right? Okay, we got that established. You've said that regardless of the court's decision....

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, no, no, no, no. I'll get it straight for you. I just said I didn't want to prejudge the court's decision.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Let's go over it slowly so I understand it. After the court has made a decision, in conjunction with your committed statement that there's going to be a second look, there will be further soil tests and public hearings related to this property. Is that correct? And have you notified Gloucester estates in writing of this position of the government?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Aye.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, you see, Mr. Chairman, we got the minister talking too much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, now talk — thank you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member is going over ground he's already covered. I stated a few minutes ago what the "second look" would entail. That's public knowledge. In a statement made by myself as minister I said I would not want to prejudge the court decision. I said I had made a public statement and that's as far as I would like to comment at this time, because the matter is before the court. Mr. Chairman, not being in the legal profession, I would not want to make comments that may cause a problem with regard to the case. And I think the Leader of the Opposition should recognize that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking him to say anything now, I'm just going over what he just said today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's public knowledge, for heaven's sake.

MR. BARRETT: I asked if you wrote Gloucester estates a letter and told them that you would be conducting soil tests and further public hearings on this land. That's all I'm asking. Have you written Gloucester and told them this?

You see, Mr. Chairman, I think he's said too much today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I haven't.

MR. BARRETT: In my excellent probing manner, I got the minister to admit publicly for the first time in the chamber — and I don't want it broadcast out of the chamber until I get a chance to do it — that there's going to be a second look.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, for heaven's sake, where have you been? It's in the press. It's all there.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, and the second look will include soil tests. And there'll be public hearings. If Gloucester believes that, why are they bothering going to court? The time to go to court, Mr. Chairman, would be after there were further soil tests, after there are further public hearings, and after the final decision from the second look promised by the ALR was made. Would that not be logical, Mr. Chairman? If you had the property, and you had it taken out of the ALR and then the Premier said, "We're going to freeze it, because we want to take a second look," and then the Minister of Agriculture said the second look would include further soil tests and public hearings, you wouldn't go to court.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sit down.

MR. BARRETT: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to respond. Sit down.

MR. BARRETT: I know you want to respond, because you're a little bit boxed in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're all wet, and wrong.

[ Page 2644 ]

MR. BARRETT: Do you mean to say that Gloucester estates is going to court for fun?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't even know.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I finished the hypothesis to you, because you and I understand each other. There's a symbiotic relationship between social workers and lawyers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Heaven forbid!

MR. BARRETT: We know how much help you nee

I'll finish the case. If you made the application to the Agricultural Land Reserve, and the ALC said, "No, you can't have it," then you made an appeal and you were told you could have it, then there was a public outcry saying you shouldn't have it, then the Premier of the province said it would now be frozen and they'd take a second look, and then you were told that the second look would include soil tests and public hearings, would you bother spending all that money on lawyers, knowing how much they cost, to go to court — with soil tests and a public hearing still in the offing — regardless of what the courts said?

Do you know what I think, Mr. Chairman? Forgive me for being somewhat suspicious, but I believe that if the court decides at this point that that land will stay out of the ALR, there will be no further soil tests or public hearings. Gloucester, if it wins the court case, will be told: "The government will not pursue this matter any further." That's what I believe, and I have been given absolutely no shred of evidence to believe otherwise. I believe that if Gloucester wins the case, the word of that minister and that government will be put aside and they will say: "We respect the court's decision. There will be no soil tests or public hearings and that land will remain under the decision of the court, because we, as a government" — and this is the excuse they'll use — "will not want to go against the court's decision." That's my prediction. Pledge me wrong, Mr. Minister. Tell me that no matter what happens, there will be soil tests and public hearings on this land again. Pledge me wrong. It's a simple question. Give me your pledge, true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, he's a great entertainer. I'll tell you you're wrong, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, because, as you must know, the case is before the court for the purpose of determining whether or not an Environment and Land Use Committee decision can be overruled by cabinet. That is the case before the court, as I understand it. Is that correct?

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's correct. That's the case that's before the court, but as to the statement in regard to the second look, we have to wait until the court decision is made. The judge of that court has stated that. If the court decision comes in that the government was right and the land could be frozen and a second look could be taken, then we will do a detailed analysis, you might say, by the Land Commission, which is public knowledge. I and the Land Commission have made a public statement to determine beyond any doubt whether or not all or part is agricultural land.... Then the determination would be whether or not it would be the recommendation by the commission to put it back into the land reserve.

Mr. Member, the case before the court is a case regarding jurisdiction as to whether or not the cabinet had the right to freeze that property. That's the contention, as I understand it, that Gloucester Properties has made — whether they had the right not to allow the land out, because the decision of the Environment and Land Use Committee was to let it out, and that's the decision we have to wait for from the court. So what you're saying, in all the performance and acting you've put on, is really irrelevant to the question at this particular point in time, because the question as to who had the authority to do what is out of our jurisdiction.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the more the minister talks, the more he gets in trouble. The impression I had at the start of this questioning was that there were going to be further soil tests and a public hearing. That's the impression I had.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the second look. You know that as well as I do.

MR. BARRETT: That's the second look. Now we've got a new sentence and I'll bet you it's there in Hansard and I heard it correctly. You said that the court case is to define whether or not the government is legally right in the second look, and if the court decides that the government was right, then there will be a second look.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the decision of the court.

MR. BARRETT: Oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: You know that as well as I do.

MR. BARRETT: So what you're saying.... Just a minute, now....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is this Act 11?

MR. BARRETT: We're going to take a few more minutes' time. I didn't interrupt you. Don't interrupt me. Let's be civilized now. We're getting close to....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much.

I'm just dealing with what I want to get out of the minister. The first time I heard it, it was: "There's going to be a second look." The second time I heard it, it was: "There's going to be a second look, if the court says the government was within its rights to freeze the land." Oh, Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy for the minister, but the minister has been fudging a little bit this afternoon. He's tired in his estimates and he's been giving answers that don't quite mesh. I suspect, and I say again, that the government has absolutely no intention of giving a guarantee that there will be soil tests and public hearings again. I would ask the minister if he would publicly stake his seat on that commitment of a second look. Is the second-look commitment good enough for you to say: "If I don't keep this promise, I'll resign my seat"?

[ Page 2645 ]

Do you know what I'm on, Mr. Chairman? I lay it out again simply for everybody to understand. If the court case goes against the government and Gloucester wins the case, this government will not lift a finger to have a second look. That's my prediction. I ask the minister to tell me right to my face that I'm wrong. Tell me so and stake your seat on it, Mr. Minister. You too, Member for North...wherever you are.

Mr. Chairman, I know what the game plan is. The game plan is simply this: if Gloucester wins the case, this government will not take a second look. This government will not order soil tests and this government will not have public hearings on that land. This government will allow the original appeal decision to remove the 626 acres to stand.

I want it publicly understood and on the record that in this moment in the minister's estimates no guarantee was given to the public of British Columbia that that promise of a second look would be kept, regardless of the outcome of the court. That's the whole nitty-gritty, right down into a simple thing. We know that that minister will not stand up and give a guarantee that regardless of the outcome of the court decision, the promised soil tests, the promised second look, the promised public hearings will take place.

I ask the minister this simple question. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, will you give your pledge that the promised second look will take place with soil tests and public hearings on this land?

It took me a long time to finally make the point and get it across.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's the point?

MR. BARRETT: The point is you have no intention of guaranteeing that there will be a second look on this property.

You have no intention of guaranteeing that there will be soil tests and you have no intention of guaranteeing there will be public hearings, regardless of the outcome of the court case.

You've been caught, simply and clearly and plainly, trying to leave the impression that you're going to do something. Do you want to tell me that you pledge, regardless of the out come of the court case, there'll be a second look with soil tests and public hearings? Tell me that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Once more, the member opposite knows full well what is before the court. What is before the court is the question as to whether or not cabinet had the authority to overrule the Environment and Land Use Committee's decision and put a freeze on the property. That is my understanding. I may have the legal terminology not quite accurate, but that is my understanding of the case before the court. That case has to be determined. But it is public knowledge that this government stated that they would take a second look at the property in question. That is the reason the order-in-council was passed, to freeze the land so we could take a second look. As the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission....

The member opposite also knows a public statement was made that the Land Commission would proceed as though the land was not in the land reserve, just as they did in 1973-74, and they would analyze the soil, do an in-depth survey of the soil, to see whether or not it is agricultural land. You can call it fine tuning of the system that we have had in place and will continue to do to more properly identify agricultural land. They would hold public hearings to have input from people. Then they would follow the normal procedure of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and make their recommendation according to the act. Then the property, if it was so identified, would proceed to be placed into the agricultural land reserve, depending on a decision based on their recommendation. That is the procedure that has been followed for a number of years under the previous administration and under this administration, but the whole thing, of course, hinges on the case before the court, as the member full knows. He knows that, and he knows a public statement has been made by myself as minister responsible for the Land Commission. He also knows that. He knows the statement the Premier made with regard to the second look.

He's building a case but he hasn't got any foundation for it, Mr. Chairman. He's doing his usual performance in this House. I don't mind. I'm not tired, Mr. Member. I can go on here for days. I enjoy this sort of thing. It's exciting. It's interesting. You perform very well. I'm quite prepared to listen to you for another 20 years if I have to, heaven forbid. But I am certainly prepared to listen.

MR. BARRETT: Everything is going great until the minister throws in — what we've got out of him today — a brand-new what my lawyer-colleague friends call a caveat: a new condition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: There's no condition.

MR. BARRETT: No condition? That's what I want to hear. Now we're getting closer. I ask you simply this question: regardless of the outcome of the court case, will there be soil tests and public hearings? Yes or no. That's what we're really down to. You understand what I'm saying and I understand what you're saying. Even if no one else understands what we're saying, we both know each other enough, Mr. Chairman. to understand what we're saying to each other. I'm asking you point blank: regardless of the decision in the court case, will the Agricultural Land Commission...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now just think about what you're saying. You know exactly what you're saying.

MR. BARRETT: I know exactly what I'm saying, yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well why don't you follow it through and answer it for yourself?

MR. BARRETT: If I were to answer it, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you how I would answer it. I would say: "Mr. Member, regardless of the outcome of the court case, the government's promise for soil tests and public hearings under the agricultural land reserve will go ahead." That's what I would say.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is it?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Would you have that authority?

MR. BARRETT: Certainly.

[ Page 2646 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: How?

MR. BARRETT: Under the existing legislation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What legislation?

MR. BARRETT: Well, we get more from the interjections.... This is where the laws of the province are made, Mr. Chairman. What we really have here is a revealing indication from the minister that he does not have a commitment to carry the promise through. The laws originate in this chamber, the laws can be modified in this chamber, and the intention of the lawmakers can be expressed from this chamber.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The courts are apart from this chamber, are they not?

MR. BARRETT: The courts interpret what this chamber passes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: That is right. And if the court interprets that you didn't have the right to put a freeze on it, then I predict that you will say: "Oh, oh, the court says we didn't have a right to put a freeze on it, therefore we will not have a second look, therefore we will not do the soils test, and therefore we will not have public hearings." I think, Mr. Chairman, that I am now correct in charging the minister with shamming this whole fight, because if it were the government's intention to ensure that there was a second look, if it were the government's intention to ensure there were soil tests and public hearings, it would amend the law now to guarantee that such took place.

MR. BRUMMET: Don't get violent.

MR. BARRETT: The member says: "Don't get violent." I am full of nothing but love in my heart, even for that member. I love you, Mr. Member.

MR. BRUMMET: Oh, oh! That worries me.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: That's the kiss of death.

MR. BARRETT: Even though you're stunned, I love you.

Mr. Chairman, what we've established today is that this government has no intention of pledging that regardless of the outcome of the court case there will be soil tests and public hearings. Let every one of those editorial writers and every one of those persons out there who have protested about this land understand clearly ahead of time that this minister refuses to give a guarantee in the House that his promise will be kept regardless of the court decision. It is clear to me that your promise isn't worth anything. It's clear to me that you're hoping this whole embarrassing situation can be shoved aside by a court decision saying you had no right to do it under existing legislation, that you have no intention, after that court decision, to come in and amend the legislation to ensure that a second look can take place, and that you will hang your hat on that court decision and walk away saying that no further action will take place, there will be no soil tests, there will be no public hearings, and that land will remain outside of the agricultural land reserve.

Let's get it clear: that's exactly what we've been told this afternoon. If I'm wrong, I challenge the minister to get up and say: "The member for Vancouver East is wrong; regardless of what the court's decision is, there will be soil tests and there will be public hearings by the ALR commission over the 626 acres." All you have to do to shut me up is stand up and say: "Regardless of the court case, I pledge that the promise of a second look with soil tests and public hearings will take place." That's all I'm waiting to hear: a pledge on that promise, regardless of the court case.

The minister understands exactly what I'm asking for, and he's obviously not prepared to say: "I pledge, regardless of the outcome of the court case, that we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that there is a second look with soil tests and with public hearings." That's what I want to hear.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member again — I think in his third act — knows full well that the matter is before the court, and if he wasn't such a....

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch it!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess if he wasn't such a politician, Mr. Chairman, he'd know full well that the matter is before the court and should not be discussed in detail. He's also asking a Minister of Agriculture to make statements in this House before a decision is made by the court, which he also knows full well is outside and apart from this Legislature. He's been in this House for 20-some years, I think. He should be ashamed of the way he's performing this afternoon. It's before the court, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the Chair can give some guidance in regard to just how far he intends to take this argument. Shame on him!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, all members must be aware of the subjudice rule, and discussion that would influence the court is clearly out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, I would ask the Chairman to recall the statements and the question that the Leader of the Opposition is putting to the Minister of Agriculture. I have to ask the Chair's guidance, but I'd say that is totally out of order, because the case is before the court.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we already have a ruling from the Chair that the statement by the minister, not by me, about the second look and the nature of the second look — that is, the soil test and the public hearings — is in order. Now he wants to put his own statement out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The questions you're putting are out of order, you know that.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, first of all you tell me that I should be ashamed of myself. Why should I be ashamed of myself? Can you tell me, Mr. Chairman, why I shouldn't ask a simple question of the simple minister about a simple problem? You've made a pledge that there will be a second look; you've made a pledge that there will be soil tests and public

[ Page 2647 ]

hearings. You said that in the House. Then, when you were asked questions in the debate this afternoon about whether or not that pledge would be kept, you started looking for rules, you started bringing up the court case, you started saying the member knows full well....

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Then he started attacking me personally. Those vicious personal attacks may hurt me deeply, Mr. Chairman. I have lost many nights' sleep over these kinds of attacks, but I have pressed on because my duty demands it. Any sling and arrow that that minister wishes to throw at me will be glanced off by the steel armour that has been bred in me by perseverance and fighting to get at the truth. My duty is to get the minister to tell the truth, and the minister, once he's close to giving us an answer, starts attacking me. I want to thank goodness my wife and children are not here today to hear the minister attack me this way. I want to thank goodness that my colleagues are half gone. They'll not hear this attack today, but I want to thank the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) for sitting through this whole debate, because he knows deep in his heart that he agrees with me on this issue.

MR. KING: Good old George, he drinks Fraser River water.

MR. BARRETT: Anybody who would drink Fraser River water would want to guarantee the continuation of nature in its bounty.

Mr. Minister, we can end this debate very quickly. You can insult me all you want, Mr. Minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no full moon; how come you're acting like this?

MR. BARRETT: You can insult me all you want, Mr. Minister; I can have all the attacks of the members of the House. What I know we got out of the minister today is that his word isn't worth a soil test. It isn't worth a public hearing. His word isn't worth a pinch of snuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, personal attacks on any member of the House, in one form or another, are most unparliamentary. I would ask the member speaking if he would withdraw the remarks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that the minister's word isn't worth a pinch of snuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that the member withdraws is sufficient.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw everything, the good and the bad — so that we cover everything.

Now I come back to one simple question. This is the last time of asking, and I know this is your last chance to square with this House and the people of this province as to what kind of real commitment you've got on the Gloucester estates. I think I know already.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I even stretch my love for you, my friend, my brother, my good friend, the good member for Boundary-Similkameen, the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Yes or no. Will you pledge to the people of this province that, regardless of the outcome of the court case on the Gloucester estates, it is the government's intention to keep the Premier's word of a second look, and that you will ensure that there will be soil tests on the 626 acres of the Gloucester estates, and that there will be public hearings on this to see whether or not it should be returned to the agricultural land reserve? No fooling, no funning, just plain truth. Will you guarantee that the second-look pledge will be kept and that it is government policy that that pledge be kept, including soil tests and public hearings?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is, in my opinion, out of order. The matter is before the court. He is asking this minister for a statement regardless of what the court decision is. He knows full well that I cannot respond and prejudge a decision of the court.

MR. BARRETT: If the member's ruling given to the Chair is correct, he could be cited for contempt of the House today. He just gave his ruling, after he's the one who announced that it was government policy to have a second look, to have soils tests, to have public hearings.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. you're the one who announced it today. But when asked. "Does that announcement mean a guarantee regardless of the court case?" he said: "Now wait a minute. We have to have respect for the court case." He wants it both ways.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'll sit down; there's no use pursuing it any further.

I'll tell you what we've got, as far as I'm concerned. We've got a government that is afraid to follow through on a promise it made in a moment of hysteria, saying that there would be a second look. When the Premier of the province was on the run. under some public heat, he announced there would be a second look. When they got in that log jam, they stalled, didn't order a second look and hoped Gloucester would go to court. Gloucester went to court and they're still bedevilled by the Premier's promise and they're hoping to blazes that the court case comes out against them. I say you will not keep your promise, if the court case goes against you and in favour of Gloucester. There will not be soils tests. There will not be a public hearing. You make a mockery of the Premier's word. We've got it on record today. We'll just wait and see what happens.

MR. BARBER: I have some questions for the minister about the criteria which are applied by his department when determining who all be in receipt of joint DREE and ARDA funds. I have a number of specific questions, and hopefully the minister might, thus forewarned, have a chance to take a note of them.

When the Crown gives money to businesses, that gift is called an interest-free forgivable loan. When the Crown gives money to human beings, it's called welfare. I wonder why we don't reverse the terms. I wonder why we don't

[ Page 2648 ]

describe human beings who need support from the Crown as being in receipt of an interest-free forgivable loan. I wonder further why we don't describe business that receives the same favour as being in receipt of welfare.

One of the gifts that this government has made is a gift to a company that I'll be referring to in a few moments, after which, I hope, the minister might answer the following questions. I'd like to find out what tests, if any, the government makes under the joint ARDA and DREE agreements for welfare for agricultural enterprises as to the financial viability of a corporation that makes a proposal to receive welfare. I would like to know what criteria are used and what tests are made to determine the economic viability of the enterprise. I'd like to know what the government's apparent argument is. I quote from one of its own statements in justification of one of these welfare grants to a company: it "will help maintain the company's competitive position," presumably in the marketplace, and as well will help "protect existing jobs." When the Crown gives away hundreds of thousands of dollars in what is really welfare to business....

HON. MR. HEWITT: You should talk to the member next to you, because that's a terrible attack. You should talk to her.

MS. BROWN: It is welfare.

MR. BARBER: It is welfare to business, but the Crown prefers to describe it instead as an interest-free forgivable loan. I think it's of some interest to the Legislature that we should be informed, when we examine these matters, of the standards and tests applied in regard to the financial viability and financial need of any applicant corporation. As well, we need to know whether or not the government is in a position to assess why it was that an allegedly viable corporation was somehow, at the same time, so precarious that it could not make a successful application to a commercial lender. As I say, I'm referring to a specific company and will do so at some length in a moment. But I'd like, if I may, to hear a specific reply from the minister to a specific series of questions.

Let me restate them briefly. When a decision is made by the Crown in regard to joint ARDA-DREE grants — welfare — in the agricultural industry, what are the tests made and what criteria are applied on the following cases: (1) the financial viability of the corporation; (2) the financial need of the corporation; (3) the apparent inability of the corporation to secure money from a commercial lender; (4) the notion introduced in one of the government's own statements that it is necessary to make such grants in order to protect a competitive position, and as well to protect jobs? I'd appreciate the minister's comments on this, I think, extremely sensitive policy matter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask your second question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. BARBER: No. If the minister doesn't have the information at hand, perhaps he could at least do us the courtesy of telling us so and....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask your next question.

MR. BARBER: No, I choose to ask the questions I've got at hand. You don't need to tell me what questions to ask or in what order. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. If you can't answer, that's not fine, because it would appear to betray an ignorance of your own ministry and of its own programs. This government has a program which has made gifts to businesses — which the Crown prefers to describe as interest-free forgivable loans, which, if residents of my community were to receive them personally, would be called welfare, and they would be snubbed and humiliated by a lot of people. However, when business gets welfare it's apparently something to congratulate them for.

It may or may not be a good point, but I'd just like it to be a little more equitable. If there's a need to give welfare to business, that's fine. We'd like to hear what that is. I don't object to the Crown, from time to time, giving welfare to business if it's in the broadest social interests of the people whom the Crown serves. But I want to know what tests, standards, measures and criteria are applied. I want to know specifically what the position is by policy and intent in regard to the several questions which I just asked. Is the minister prepared, or able, to answer these questions at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. BARBER: Apparently not. I suppose the reason the minister doesn't want to answer is because he's afraid that whatever he might say would be contradicted by whatever I might come to say a little later on. So anticipating his reaction, let me go on to tell the Legislature the story of one particular gift made to one particular friend of the government. Let me talk a bit about how the case was made — it would appear — by the company. Let me talk about the relationship between the Social Credit Party and the recipient of this gift.

There is a firm in Kelowna called McLean and Fitzpatrick Ltd. I hope the member for Kelowna is listening. He may, or may not, have had some involvement in this. This particular firm received a gift of $140,000 — as the government's announcement put it — to help modernize their apple and pear grading and packing facilities. The $140,000 was made as a present to the company. Let me state at the outset that if a case can be made in favour of such a gift, we'd like to hear it. In fact the case made at the time of this gift's announcement was, to say the least, brief and vague and imprecise. The minister was asked by me three times to answer certain questions as to his policy in regard to these gifts. The committee knows that three times he refused to answer. Well, we may now know why he refused to answer, because we've been doing our homework again. We've been examining this particular matter.

Some curious questions are provoked when you study the relationship between this company and the Social Credit Party. A gift was made jointly by DREE and the Agricultural and Rural Development Subsidiary Agreement. Specifically, the Ministry of Agriculture of the province of British Columbia contributed $70,000, and the federal government contributed another $70,000. McLean and Fitzpatrick was a company incorporated in 1926 originally, although its incorporation papers were not filed until June 5, 1933, in its current form. The company is registered as incorporation 13444. As of January 28 of this year, the company was apparently not in good standing with the registrar of companies. It filed its last annual report in June 1978. It was

[ Page 2649 ]

apparently fully a year, or almost two, delinquent. The registered office of this company is at Rutland Station in Rutland; the records office is at 3205-32nd Avenue in Vernon; the president is Bessie Henrietta Fitzpatrick, listed as living at 354 Burne Avenue, Kelowna; the vice-president is Hugh Duggan Fitzpatrick of 1600 Stafford Road, Kelowna; the secretary is Clarence Alison Irish, 4310 Hobson Road, Kelowna. That is information our research office obtained January 28 of this year; if it's not currently correct, I'll stand to have it corrected, but that's what was in the files at that date.

According to the announcement made jointly by the federal and provincial governments.... By the way, on June 30, 1978, when the minister now was then the Minister of Agriculture, the company was described as follows: "McLean and Fitzpatrick, established in 1926, is the largest privately owned tree-fruit packinghouse in the Okanagan and the fifth largest overall. Its average output exceeds 32 million pounds of fruit per annum, drawing from 137 local growers." The statement went on to say: "The modern grading and packing equipment will help maintain the company I s competitive position in the tree-fruit industry and protect existing jobs."

Again, the committee might want to be reminded that three times I asked the minister to explain what the policy is. Let me put the questions for the fourth time. What examination is made of the financial viability of the applicant for such gifts? What examination is made of that company's real need for such a gift? What examination is made as to why a supposedly healthy company is unable to obtain money from a commercial lender in order to expand — as no doubt legitimately it must do — its capital facilities, plant and operations? Why, for instance, is it necessary for a company — which in this case is the fifth largest overall tree fruit packinghouse, and whose average output exceeds 32 million pounds of fruit per annum — to obtain a gift from the government? One presumes that if it were well operated it would be able to compete, as every other business does, for a commercial loan. It would be able to pay the interest on that loan, and it would be able to retire the principle. Now the minister, for whatever reason, chose three times to refuse to answer my questions as to policy.

Let me talk a bit more about McLean and Fitzpatrick. Let me say at the outset that I presume they are a good company. I presume they run a clean operation that meets all the tests and standards of the inspecting authorities. I have no information to the contrary. But I do have a lot of questions about the relationship between the principals of this company and the Social Credit Party, and the need, real or imaginary, for this company to receive a gift of $140,000 from the federal and provincial administrations, on a 50-50 split basis.

I have, by virtue of the clipping service to which I subscribe, a copy of the October 1979 newsletter of the South Okanagan Social Credit Association. On page 2, I believe it is, they have a list called "the current turkeys." The Socred association newsletter's "current turkeys" lists the members of their executive — I guess their judgment is better than our own. According to the list of current turkeys, as found in the South Okanagan Social Credit Association newsletter, the president of that association was one Doug Parsons, the vice-president was one Don Pratt, the treasurer was Wendy Pratt and the secretary was Wendy Nelson. It went on to list a number of directors, including Lorraine Becker, Jan Bakhuys, Dorothy Mooney, Rosalie Chalmers, Elaine Moser, Ken Noble, Dale Forsyth, Ken Harding, Allan Patterson, Ester Reese, Dave Skoglund, Fred Welke, and Jessie — I believe it's Gen, if I read it correctly — and Hugh Fitzpatrick — the member might have heard that name before — who gives his address on the list of current turkeys as published under that title by the South Okanagan Socreds, as R.R. 1, Sexsmith Road, and a phone number, 765-5852.

Well. on the possibility that there are two Hugh Fitzpatricks and that the principal of the company that received a gift of  $70,000 from the Social Credit administration of British Columbia is not the same Fitzpatrick as is a director of the South Okanagan constituency association — which is, of course, the riding of the Premier himself — we decided to do a couple of double checks. I refer to the Kelowna telephone directory, at page 69, which lists McLean and Fitzpatrick Ltd. at Sexsmith Road, 765-5101. I refer to the city directory of the city of Kelowna, page 86, which lists. again, one H. D. Fitzpatrick, and Jacqui, who describes himself as the general manager of McLean and Fitzpatrick, Stafford Road, the telephone number given being 765-5852; that's the very same phone number as that listed beside the name of Hugh Fitzpatrick under the list called "current turkeys" in the Socred newsletter.

So I presume, Mr. Chairman, that this is the one and the same Hugh Fitzpatrick. I presume in fact that the Hugh Fitzpatrick listed in the Kelowna business directory, listed in he Kelowna phone book and listed in the membership list of the Social Credit South Okanagan association in its newsletter are all the same individual. I presume as well, because the addresses are all the same, that the report with the registrar of companies on January 28. 1980, listing Hugh Duggan Fitzpatrick, 1600 Stafford Road, Kelowna, all descry the same individual.

Assuming there is no doubt as to his identity....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Do you think it is a mistake?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. BARBER: There must be two Hugh Fitzpatricks. Let's talk about the peculiar history in Okanagan South riding of grants made to friends of the government. The party opposite, of course, is inherently skeptical about such claims that we put forward from time to time. So let me not quote any New Democrat source; let me quote rather B.C. Business Magazine, in its current edition, May 1980. I want to read briefly from an article at page 17 headed: "Kelowna Businesses Nab Heftiest Share of ASEP Funding." I will just quote very briefly from the article because I am trying to describe a pattern here of uncommon influence that certain businesses affiliated with the Social Credit Party appear to have, and have had....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have nothing to do with ASEP. Get on to vote 10, will you?

MR. BARBER: I am very much on vote 10 and your own administration of public policy and your own refusal to describe the policy you have in regard to making grants under programs for which you are responsible.

I will quote very briefly from this, Mr. Chairman: "More than $2 million in interest-free forgivable loans was recently distributed...."

[ Page 2650 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, vote 10 is the Minister of Agriculture's office. The member is referring to program is that I do not administer. I do not administer ASEP; he is not on vote 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The regulations are very clear, hon. member, that under vote 10 we may discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister, excluding legislation. I must ask the member to return to vote 10 and to make his remarks relevant to vote 10.

MR. BARBER: Certainly. What I am doing, Mr. Chairman, is describing for you how, under this administration, business in Kelowna has received, to say the least, an apparent unfair advantage and preferential treatment from the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Notwithstanding the member's desire, unless the matter is relevant to vote 10, he is not in order.

MR. BARBER: It is relevant, Mr. Chairman. The argument....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I say, unless the specifics that are under discussion are related to the Ministry of Agriculture, the member is not in order. He must confine his remarks to vote 10. Any other programs not administered by the Minister of Agriculture are not in order.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely with your comments. I am making a comparison very briefly and drawing a pattern very clearly. The pattern appears to indicate preferential treatment. The pattern is not unique to the Ministry of Agriculture, it would appear. The pattern however does seem to have a particularly vivid case history in Kelowna. Fitzpatrick and McLean, the company to which I have referred, is located in Kelowna. What I am doing is trying to place this argument in context, Mr. Chairman. Of course, that is always in order, in order that our comments should be the better understood.

Very briefly, concluding my reference to a wholly non-New Democrat source — the current edition of B.C. Business Magazine — I have only one sentence to quote, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you'll permit it. "A breakdown of recipients by the community in which they are located" — referring to ASEP — "shows that the Kelowna area received the heftiest share of the funding, both in terms of dollars and the number of successful applicants." It goes on to describe 15 Kelowna businessmen receiving $294,000. A disproportionate amount of this government's investment under that program has been made in the riding of the Premier.

Now back to the grant made by the Minister of Agriculture — also in the Premier's riding. We have, I think, demonstrated that Mr. Fitzpatrick, a principal of this company — with which, again, I have no quarrel by itself, but rather with the government he supports, because there's a logical contradiction and fallacy in this particular grant — at least, as the government has explained it to date.... We now know that a director of the Social Credit Party in South Okanagan is one of the principals of a company to which the Social Credit government of British Columbia gave $70,000, together with another $70,000 from the federal government.

The problem with all of these programs is that there is a logical contradiction when you observe the following things and when you ask the following questions. First, if the company is well run, why does it need a grant from the government? There may be an answer to that, and from time to time there's an appropriate answer. I think of the Princess Margeurite in Victoria, when the company was not terribly well run by the CPR, but when the enormous social value of that particular enterprise justified public investment. But we haven't heard that case made, and it was not made by the minister on June 30, 1978.

Secondly, if the company is in good financial shape, why is it not eligible for a commercial loan, as its competitors are forced to become eligible if they too wish to expand their plant? Now if that was taken into consideration by the government, let's find out what that consideration was.

Thirdly, what kind of accountability is there in this program in regard to an undertaking, if any, given by this or any other company toward the proper expenditure of these funds, as far as the grant — or welfare — cheque was originally concerned? Let me remind the minister again that this is welfare for business. Again, I don't object to that in principle, as long as it's clear and above board and as long as the reasons are given, the policy is public and answers are forthcoming.

May I say it again, Mr. Chairman? Three times earlier this afternoon the minister refused my specific request to answer policy questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're still talking.

MR. BARBER: I took my seat and you refused to answer.

MR. BRUMMET: How do you answer insinuations and allegations that are character assassinations?

MR. BARBER: Thanks, Fred.

The fact is that the Social Credit Party has an uncommon relationship with the firm of McLean and Fitzpatrick, it would appear. In June 1979, McLean and Fitzpatrick, for instance, I am informed, spent a considerable amount of money to obtain, use and distribute Social Credit literature in the riding, and in fact went so far as to sponsor the purchase of address plates, according to one member of the Social Credit Party, whom I trust is reliable. The firm of McLean and Fitzpatrick apparently used its own corporate funds to buy address plates for the Social Credit Party in that riding and do a major mailing on behalf of the government — or at least, on behalf of the government party. Now if McLean and Fitzpatrick does that thing and does it openly and spends the money — its own profits — for political purposes, that's fine. Hopefully, such an expenditure will be declared.

What I'm wondering is whether any of the $70,000 was spent for that purpose. You see, we don't know whether or not they actually needed the $70,000. We don't know whether or not they needed the welfare. I want to know what they asked you. That's the question. I want to know what claim they made on the public purse through your administration. I want to know what case they made to the government.

On a number of occasions I gave the minister an opportunity to describe his general policy in regard to such applications. He refused repeatedly. Now we find out that this

[ Page 2651 ]

company, which presumably does a good job in its business and presumably meets all the testing and agricultural inspection standards of the federal and provincial ministries — I have no quarrel with any of that — has enjoyed benefit from the Social Credit Party through its government. We observe that its principal — or one of them — is a member of the Social Credit Party in the Premier's riding and a director on the Premier's executive association. If there is no connection between those facts, let's hear it from the minister. If he was totally unaware of the relationship between Mr. Fitzpatrick and the Social Credit Party, let him say so. As we are bound by the rules of the House, we'll believe him. I have to wonder whether or not there might be just a bit of favouritism in the Kelowna area. After all, B.C. Business Magazine tells us of the incredibly disproportionate amount of funds through ASEP Kelowna has received. After all, we now know of the relationship between the principal of McLean and Fitzpatrick....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Is B.C. Business wrong? Is the claim wrong? If the government has an explanation, let them try this time to make it, as they were given a number of occasions before to make it. If the company was unable to obtain money from a commercial lender, let the minister table the documents which would demonstrate that. If the company was unable to do its business as its competitors must and thereby found it necessary to obtain welfare, which is what this program is — and it may be justified from time to time — then let him say so. If through some amazing coincidence it's not, in fact, the same Mr. Fitzpatrick, that would be a remarkable thing to discover.

Let me conclude by asking again specifically the questions which the minister refused to answer before. In regard to this and any other application under the program which he administers and jointly funds with DREE, the following.... What tests are made as to the financial viability of a corporation? Specifically, what tests were made as to the financial viability of this corporation, McLean and Fitzpatrick?

Secondly, what tests were made as to the financial need of this corporation and what questions were asked as to why, at least logically, one had to presume that they were somehow not able to obtain a commercial loan under commercial conditions, as their competitors presumably have to do? It strikes me that such a gift might put their competitors at an unfair disadvantage. Now if those questions were not asked, then what other case was made in favour of this application? Because if those questions were not asked, they could not be answered. If there is no satisfactory answer, then you have to ask what other considerations there were when this gift was made to a company which, within its industry, I repeat, is a perfectly reputable organization, to the best of my knowledge. But the government is a different kettle of fish. Social Credit has a history of doing favours for its friends — not just in Langley, but in other places.

Let me continue with the specific questions which the minister previously refused to answer. What does the condition "help maintain a company's competitive position" mean when attached to such a gift? What criteria are established in order to determine that? What consideration does the government give to the possibility that when you make welfare available under those conditions to one company, you are thereby disfranchising other companies which compete in the same field? What tests are made of that and what broad policy exists to cover the possibility that one gift made to one company impairs the ability of five or six competing others to engage in the same field? That's an important matter.

Now there are other illustrations of this problem which my colleagues will be raising in the near future. McLean and Fitzpatrick is not the only instance of an apparent contradiction. McLean and Fitzpatrick is not the only example at hand of a seeming failure by this government to apply any tests as to financial viability. accountability or need. It's not the only example, merely the first that we will be presenting, as to the apparent failure by this government to engage its own policy in a sound and businesslike way to promote enterprise in agriculture and in other fields in the economy of British Columbia.

I can find no evidence that McLean and Fitzpatrick is so badly run that it cannot compete for a commercial loan and pay the interest and retire the principal just like everyone else has to. I find no evidence whatever that the company is so weak or so ill-managed that it was in dire and urgent need of this particular gift. If there is such evidence, let's have it, because it's never been made public before today, at least in the documents we've been able to observe. It was not made public at the time of the original announcement. Admirable as the purpose of packing house modernization may be — I don't dispute that — the way in which this government made this decision apparently....

HON. MR. HEWITT: You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. BARBER: The minister says I should be ashamed ashamed of asking questions about how you make decisions, in whose favour and for what reasons? Is there anything wrong with that? Ashamed of finding out by research the involvement by certain principals in certain companies with the government party? Ashamed of finding out why it is that you make statements like "will help maintain the company's competitive position in the tree-fruit industry and protect existing jobs," and leave it at that? What may be a gift to one company is unfair advantage for others. Do you not realize that? You tell me to be ashamed of asking questions like this, and I tell you you don't understand the job of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you must address the Chair in the debate.

MR. BARBER: Additionally, he may not understand free enterprise.

Let me restate. I can find no document, no evidence, no material that suggests the company was so badly run, so ill-administered, so underfinanced and so desperately in need that it had to be given this present for the reasons the minister outlined. Does the minister understand that case?

If there was urgent financial need, the government never made that clear at the time of the grant. If there were problems with internal financing, the government never said that at the time. If there was a case to be made for "protecting its competitive position," the government never made that case except by referring to it in a completely bland and unhelpful way. They simply said it and thought the people would be so

[ Page 2652 ]

witless they would never look into the background of the decision. Let me restate, this is not the last but merely the first in a series of specific questions that we will be asking about specific grants.

The minister says we should be ashamed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You should be.

MR. BARBER: What a joke. If any government or any party should be ashamed of its behaviour in this field, it certainly isn't ours, but rather, over the years, it's another party, which shall be nameless for the time being.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, my colleagues have murmured "aye," and I wish I could agree with them, but I knew if I didn't get up somebody else would. So we'll carry on for a few more moments.

First of all, I really feel somewhat disturbed by the first member for Victoria, who, I think, on two occasions in the last three or four days has literally attempted to imply that individuals who work hard in this province are taking advantage of government programs. Some of my colleagues call it character assassination, and I have to agree with them. As the member for Victoria mentions, he doesn't know the individual, he doesn't know the company involved, but he makes statements....

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, the minister appears to accuse me of character assassination. The charge is false and objectionable and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An hon. member has taken offence to a remark by another hon. member, and I would ask if the hon. member now speaking would withdraw the remark that the other member found offensive.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, according to the rules of this House I have no alternative, but I do so very reluctantly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is not a satisfactory withdrawal. The minister knows full well that a hesitant, partial or incomplete withdrawal is no withdrawal at all. I ask for a complete and unqualified withdrawal of a false charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister make an unconditional withdrawal?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Under the protection of this House, the member has attempted to imply that a businessman is linked with the Social Credit government and has been receiving favours. I call that character assassination. He should be ashamed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again, the Chair is in the position that a member has stood in his place and asked for a withdrawal of a remark which that member finds offensive. Once again I must ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would make an unconditional withdrawal of the remark which the first member for Victoria finds offensive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we aren't getting carried a little farther than the rules of this House require at the present time. It has never been my understanding that simply because any member might find any remark offensive to that member.... That could carry us a long, long way in having members withdraw.

MS. BROWN: That's why you lie in the House all the time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The first member for Victoria attempts to have the minister withdraw on the basis that it was a false accusation. It's not on a point of order that that should be decided, but rather it should be decided on the terms of the debate in this House whether or not it's a false accusation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has been asked by one member who finds a remark offensive, and parliamentary dictates ask that, out of courtesy, the member may withdraw. If the member chooses not to withdraw, then a....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One point of order at a time please, hon. members. I have another matter to discuss prior to that.

At the same time, during the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Chair clearly heard a remark issued by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and I must ask that member to withdraw the remark that a member lies in this House.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources spoke on, obviously what's happened here is that the Minister of Agriculture has given an improper motive to the remarks from the first member for Victoria. He has said that your remarks, first member for Victoria, are designed to assassinate character, and that's implying an improper motive. I say that it's perfectly legal within this House for the first member for Victoria to ask for a withdrawal from the minister on those grounds. It's not a case of etiquette; it's a case of following the same rules that we all follow in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the matter could be resolved almost immediately if the minister would assist the Chair at this time by withdrawing the imputation of any false motives on the part of the member for Victoria.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy to you, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member. The matter is concluded. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

[ Page 2653 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that it has been the practice of the House, when the Chair is trying to restore order by getting a withdrawal of an offensive remark, that the Chair has not entertained points of order while dealing with that matter, and that points of order have waited until after. I would like the Chair to perhaps consider that, because I believe that's been the practice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I would point out, though, it is within the Chair's competence to seek any extra advice that members may or may not wish to put forward to help in the Chair's decision.

Shall vote 10 pass? The first member for Victoria on vote 10.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, I was going to respond, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: You let the vote go by with an "aye." Come on!

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I was just getting up, but....

MR. BARBER: I was recognized and I'll speak for a moment, if I may.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, you don't want to hear the answer, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: I certainly do want to hear the answer, and if you had been bright enough to answer it when I first raised the question, you wouldn't be in this box now.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If we are to retain any kind of order and decorum in the House, we must address our remarks through the Chair. Otherwise we end up in the situation in which we just found ourselves. The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Temporarily a false motive was placed on a comment I made, and the minister, after some prodding, withdrew. Let me restate my position, as clearly as I can, for the benefit of the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) especially, who knows nothing whatever about character assassination.

I have no quarrel with Mr. Fitzpatrick or his company — none. By all evidence it is a reputable, honourable company that meets all of the requirements of the agricultural industry. My quarrel is with you and your government. I have never met Mr. Fitzpatrick, but I have no reason to believe other than that he is an honourable and able and probably charming fellow who does a good job for his own company, which in this case consisted of getting $70,000 out of the provincial government. I want to know how he did it. I have some constituents....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: May I make the case again, so that it is as abundantly clear to the people opposite as possible? Mr. Fitzpatrick no doubt does his job extremely well.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's called backtracking.

MR. BARBER: No backtracking in the least. I said before what I'll say again now. It is precisely because we can find no evidence of maladministration or financial malnourishment that we have to wonder if anything else was considered when this application came forward. We have to observe the curious coincidence under Social Credit of business arants given in the Kelowna area. We have to observe what that notorious rag, B.C. Business Magazine, says on page 17 of this month's issue, which in an article headlined "Kelowna Businesses Nab Hefty Share of ASEP Funding...."

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, just to bring the member back on track, it is vote 10 and he's talking about the ASEP fund, which isn't under my ministry. He knows that. He was told by the Chair a few minutes ago but he's right back at it again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER: We have a number of questions about the tests and criteria and standards you apply.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sit down. I'll tell you.

MR. BARBER: I sat down twice and you've stood up neither time to answer anything. You were content to let your vote go through. So let me do it again so you understand the questions. Maybe your vote will go through by 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must advise you either to address the Chair or discontinue your speech at this time. This is in no way helping with the regular, orderly debate that must take place if we are to proceed on business of the House.

MR. BARBER: I accept your advice.

What I am trying to determine from the government is how they come to make these decisions. What I have observed is that in one particular case we can find no evidence for anything other than that the company in question, McLean and Fitzpatrick of Kelowna, is a perfectly well-run company. That is what inspires the questions. If it was for reasons beyond its control in a market where it could not fairly compete and where the social value and the jobs that needed protecting and the community interest commanded it, then it would be understandable and self-evident why this welfare is given to that business. The problem is that precisely the opposite condition appears to exist. It is a well-run company. Fitzpatrick is a perfectly honourable guy, and a director of the Social Credit association.

MR. BRUMMET: Why the dirty allegations?

MR. BARBER: The only allegations I make are those of query, asking that minister what his policy is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We must be getting close to 6, hon. members. It seems that each day at this time we have rather great difficulty in keeping order in the House. The first member for Victoria has the floor at this time.

[ Page 2654 ]

MR. BARBER: The minister knows the questions. If he'll answer them quickly, who knows, we may be through by 6 o'clock — but brief, succinct answers as to your policy, the tests, the standards, the criteria, and how it is you decide whether or not a company like this or any other needs welfare. That's what I want to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all I resent the comment of "welfare" related to the agricultural industry in this province. I think it's an unfair statement that the member made.

Secondly, I guess the member thinks — just because he's got his shoes off and is counting his toes over there — that the decisions are made in the minister's office at the political level. He is not aware that the ARDSA program has a management committee, a joint committee made up of federal and provincial employees, and that the decision is made by that joint committee, because it is federal-provincial funds, and that it is sent to the minister for his signature on the document.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, I'm giving the member the answer. The point I want to make is that he has implied in his statements across the floor of this House for the last 15 or 20 minutes that a man's relationship between the Social Credit Party and the grant he gets or the forgivable loan he gets from the ARDSA program.... I'm attempting to point out to him that it is a management committee made up of federal and provincial employees that deal with those applications.

In regard to the criteria, they deal with the company's competitive position. As the member states, it was for the upgrading of technology, because this company, which was organized, I think, in the twenties — as the member said — registered in 1930, had outdated equipment, needed to expand, was responding to an industry study done a food industry resources company — and done by Dr. Hudson, as your seatmate next to you will fully know — a study that cost the industry $100,000, a study that indicated that assistance would be needed to upgrade the tree-fruit industry in this province.

Similar assistance was given to Kelowna Growers Cooperative, to the Naramata Co-op, to the Keremeos co-op, and to the Lake Area Co-op — all packing houses — a strategy that was put in place and was paid for by the orchardists of this province to determine how they could maintain their competitiveness against the U.S. product, how they could go and get new markets, and how they could give a better return to the growers.

What the member over there doesn't understand is that McLean and Fitzpatrick, a private company which has been operating for 40 or 50 years, creates employment for people, and gives a net-back to the producers, the orchardists. Because they have improved technology, because they have new equipment and new packing methods, the net-back to that farmer, that orchardist on his land, is improved and is greater. Mr. Fitzpatrick and his family have done a tremendous service to the orchard industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are getting close to closing time, but the member has implied in his statements that Mr. Fitzpatrick has been able to take advantage of a government program. I have indicated, first of all, that it is a joint federal-provincial program with a management committee. I have indicated an industry study was done in which McLean and Fitzpatrick was one of those businesses that received assistance.

The determination is whether or not there is "a return on investment," as to whether or not the project proceeds. The member might think that means the owner is going to get a great profit. What it does mean is that if you take that money and you have to borrow it from the commercial lender, it may not be viable. Therefore the ARDSA program in its assistance, which is a six-year forgivable loan where you either maintain or create jobs.... In regard to the viability of it, with that federal-provincial assistance under the ARDSA program it can proceed. That means that the company remains competitive, the same as the other organizations I have mentioned to you that have been identified in the Okanagan Valley. The jobs are there and there is a better return to the producer.

Mr. Member, that is the rationale used in regard to McLean and Fitzpatrick or any ARDSA program. It is an old facility. By doing these capital investments and improving it, we lower the charges for packing and grading and we give a better return to the orchardist, as I mentioned to you. It isn't a weak and ill-managed company. If it were, it wouldn't get the ARDSA program. It must be a case with an indication that it will be viable — that it will be able to operate for the coming years and maintain that employment.

Then, Mr. Chairman, when it's all through and the decision is made to grant that money, the member would imply that Mr. Fitzpatrick is handed a cheque for $70,000 from the provincial government and $70,000 from the federal government. That isn't correct. He has to complete his improvements, his project is audited and then the funds are paid out. The total program is under control to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent and are administered. We don't pay out funds until we've audited the project to ensure that what was proposed is carried out.

Those are my comments, and if need be I may well continue them tomorrow if I feel that I should elaborate more to the member opposite.

MR. BARBER: I've two more questions and you can be through it quick if you want to do it now.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I'm speaking for myself, my own comments. I have two more questions. Excuse me, I'm receiving contrary advice, Mr. Chairman.

I'll put my questions very briefly now and if the minister cares to answer them now or tomorrow that's up to him, and then he can decide whether or not to move adjournment.

What I want to know is why this particular company was apparently not eligible for a commercial loan in the way that its competitors must be? Secondly, I would observe that we have the same lists, the same study, and we're aware of the same grants being made to the others. I would also observe from the minister's own list that it's quite clear that all the other organizations in the packing house industry receiving money for modernization purposes were co-ops. This was the only private company receiving money.

The second question is: when it is a private corporation

[ Page 2655 ]

— not a co-op where the rules are different and the situation in the marketplace is different — that is being given this money, what study is made, what tests are made and what criteria are applied to determine whether or not by giving a favour to one private corporation you are thereby disfranchising or diminishing in the marketplace the competitive ability of its competitors to keep up? Those are the two questions, extremely important and sensitive matters of public policy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the amount of the ARDSA grant is no more than 25 percent of the total project. So whether it be a co-op or a private company, they either have to have the funding available or go and arrange it through a commercial lender for the balance of the total project. So the $140,000 isn't the total amount. That should answer, I think, your first question in regard to the....

MR. BARBER: So there was also a commercial loan?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, that's correct. I'm not sure for how much, but we only support up to the 25 percent figure. So there are funds coming in, whether further equity or a commercial loan, but we only cover up to 25 percent.

In regard to the assistance to this one company compared to all the co-ops, we have used the ARDSA program on many private companies. You're aware of that as well. Some of them may well be NDP supporters; we don't let politics enter into that program.

To finally answer your question, the results of the industry study that was completed, which cost the industry up to $100,000. Indicated that the packing houses had to be upgraded. They used these ARDSA funds to assist them in upgrading. which gives a better return to the producer, the orchardists in this particular case. So his identification as to whether or not he's private or a co-op doesn't really enter into it. He's upgrading to maintain his competitiveness, because they've got to sell the product in a competitive marketplace, and it gives a better return to the producer.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House will be very sorry to hear that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is under the weather, but he's doing well and he'll be back soon. I'm sure that all of us would like to wish him a very early and speedy recovery.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.