[ Page 5121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5121

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Ritchie

Assessment Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Amendments –– 5135

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Amendments –– 5135

Tabling Documents

Alcohol and Drug Commission annual report, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5135

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report for the year ending March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5135

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four good friends: Mr. and Mrs. Walske and Mr. and Mrs. Boyce, who are representing here today the Maple Ridge Foundation. They are in this beautiful city examining the carillon bells that are part of the Victoria scene, for the purpose of developing the same system for Maple Ridge. In doing so, they're adding to a town centre which is unique in the annals of British Columbia. A new and magnificent town centre will be developed there, different than anything else that has ever been done in this province. It will be a landmark in municipal development. I think that these two people are taking a very important part in bringing together the centrepiece of this tremendous operation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is referring to Mr. Elmer Walske. May I too add my welcome to Mr. Walske, whom the member and I both know. He is a prominent British Columbian, a devoted community servant and a citizen who has taken a great deal of interest in the political and social affairs of the city of Mission. Not only is he active in the foundation that the member speaks of, but he is active, I'm sure, in assisting rapid transit out to the city of Maple Ridge and to Mission. Welcome, Mr. Walske. We're both still here, Elmer. What can you do to help us?

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $160,971.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to take a few moments to respond to some of the questions that were asked by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday.

The member talked about selective reading in Agri-facts and our economic indicators. I would like to respond that the number of farmers in Canada decreased, whereas B.C. farm numbers increased. That's got to be going against a national trend and indicates the economic activity in agriculture in British Columbia as compared to the rest of Canada.

Secondly, I guess I could call it selective reading or selective quotation when the member for Cowichan-Malahat says that $6,600 is the average income. She takes the receipts and divides it by the number of farms or farmers in the province. We all know — the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I and other members present here — that many farms are part-time farms that don't derive all their income from agriculture, but they are still included in the farm numbers. There are many farms that are large operations and make many times more than $6,600 a year.

In response to her comment about the budget and the amount of the budget, I just want to make the statement that the member indicated to me that it was terrible that the budget had, in effect, been reduced, when you take into consideration the ICBC senior citizens' grant and the $500,000 from the Ministry of Labour, etc. The point I was attempting to make, both publicly and to the people of the farm community, is that we should not and need not understand the economic activity of an industry such as agriculture in this province on the basis of what is in the minister's budget. All members of the farm community are well aware of this, and they would certainly want to see returns from the marketplace as opposed to government programs. I'm only saying that if we can do the job better for them by assisting them with improved technology and methods, then the marketplace will respond, and they will not have to look to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for a support program.

In regard to the youth employment program, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is quite correct; it's $500,000 and it is under our ministry now. It was a Ministry of Labour activity, but I would suggest to her — and I'm sure she'd agree — that by having it under the Ministry of Agriculture we can better administer it, we can get better results from it, because it will be administered by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture staff and it will be directly related to agricultural activities. I think it was a good move in moving over to Agriculture those funds that relate to employment in the field of agriculture in the province of B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, certainly I agree that that's where the money should be. That's where it was in the first place; it was this government that saw fit to put it in the Ministry of Labour and now it's come back from there. Certainly I agree it would be great if the farmer could get his return from the marketplace, and I think even the minister will agree that farm income assurance is supposed to do exactly that, and yet that's the minister who is whittling away at farm income assurance.

He talks about average farm income, Mr. Chairman; it's average farm income right across Canada. I pointed out, when I read the Canadian figures yesterday, that in the prairie provinces, where they have basically large, self-supporting farms, the income was much larger. But there are a lot of part time farms in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — in all those provinces, and even in Ontario and Quebec — that have that same kind of part-time mix. Yet we in B.C. are the lowest in all of Canada.

The minister has talked about getting returns from the marketplace, and earlier last evening, when we started to discuss agriculture, he spoke about the social necessity of preserving agricultural land. He said that the farm community had been asked to make this contribution, and therefore we have these programs to support the farm community. I'd like to talk about agricultural land, Mr. Chairman, and this ministry which is responsible for it. I'd like to talk about agricultural land and this government's commitment, or lack of commitment, to the preservation of agricultural land.

Not too long ago several members of our caucus were invited to attend a joint meeting in Fort St. John relative to this proposed Site C dam. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) were invited to attend, as were the members for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips); from this side of the House the three caucus critics for those three ministries were

[ Page 5122 ]

invited to attend. Well, we all went, Mr. Chairman; we were all there — all three of us. We have a concern about what's happening with agricultural land. The Minister of Environment sent a very long, convoluted telegram that even the master of ceremonies could scarcely read. I don't know what it said, but he wasn't there. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources replied, saying that it wasn't right for them to have hearings. It was all right for B.C. Hydro to hold hearings, but it wasn't right for the Peace Valley Environmental Society to hold hearings.

MR. BRUMMET: That's not true. I was there.

MR. BARRETT: Table it, then.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for North Peace River was there. That's right. The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) sent a very long letter to explain why he couldn't get from Dawson Creek to Fort St. John, a distance of 40 miles. The Minister of Agriculture did not reply. The committee said that there was no response from the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, either of his own accord or by order, has said that he's not going to take any opposition to the Site C dam. In fact what he is going to do is to mitigate — to work with B.C. Hydro to try to get a cash settlement in return for flooded land. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how do dollars replace a commodity as scarce as agricultural land in our province? That's what that minister's prepared to do.

MR. BRUMMET: That's 30 percent of the land, isn't it?

MRS. WALLACE: The member here took exception to something I said. I think I should just repeat it and give my source. What I said, quoting the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture report, was: "Thirty percent of the class 1 to 4 land was in Peace River." I quoted from that report, and that member took exception to that, I took a lot of exception to some of the reports from that select standing committee, but I do think the work done under the first phase — the land phase — was fairly accurate and good. That's the figure that's in there. It's never been disputed.

Yet this minister is prepared to make a cash settlement for agricultural land that's to be flooded. He's not prepared to go out there and fight, as the farmers and ranchers in that area would have him do. He's prepared to settle for soil erosion and for various things that will happen there. When you start removing agricultural land to the extent that it will be removed by that particular project, you are really coming close to the point where you're upsetting all the infrastructure that goes along with agriculture. This minister says he has a commitment to agricultural land preservation, and yet all he's prepared to do in the Peace River and the Site C is to mitigate and not to move to protect that land. He has been asked by regional districts, Farmers Institutes and the Land Commission to move in another area. That is the area of the Stikine where there is another sort of mini-climate and good agricultural land. There is a real move locally there and on the part of the Land Commission to have that land put into the reserve. But again this minister, as the man responsible for that reserve, is not prepared to take that step. If he is, I wish he would stand up and tell the House that he is prepared to recommend that that land go in the reserve.

There is another area and that is the harbour lands in the Fraser Valley. I raised this with the minister last year and asked whether or not he was prepared to take any action. Those harbour lands have sat there practically idle; because they're administered by the Harbours Board on a one-year lease, there is no security of tenure and no incentive for farmers to get in and upgrade that land. The Land Commission and the farmers have recommended it, and yet this minister is apparently not prepared to take any action to ensure that that land is put into production and made into viable units. Instead, it is sitting there in the hands of the Harbours Board, subject to all the pressures that surround that lower Fraser Valley. But that minister is not prepared to take that action.

We've seen the fiascos that have gone on with decisions overruling the Land Commission in the last few months — last few years, as a matter of fact. The first was the Gloucester Properties. A decision came down on that yesterday and the thing is still before the courts after all this time. The Windermere properties — every time the minister stands up I expect him to get up and bring in an amendment to the Soil Conservation Act so that cabinet can overrule the Land Commission on that one. That's what they did with the Agricultural Land Commission Act. They brought in an amendment so that cabinet could overrule the Land Commission, even though the Land Commission was 100 percent unanimously against the decision. Now I'm expecting that minister to get up and bring in an amendment to the Soil Conservation Act because that's the act the Land Commission used to stop that wrong use of agricultural land in the Windermere valley. Thank goodness for a Land Commission that's prepared to stand up and is committed. They've been appointed and reappointed. It would appear that the government has tried to get people on there whom they think will be supportive. Yet somehow the people who get on there are still committed to the agricultural land reserve. The kind of support that is now behind that agricultural land is, I think, the thing that indicates how public opinion has changed since that reserve was first instituted.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I hear the member saying: "Here it comes." But it's true: the most recent incident is the so-called Spetifore case. I know the minister will jump up and say it isn't Spetifore, it's Delta. Well, we don't care what you call it. The net result is still the same. It's millions of dollars for somebody, and it's a loss of agricultural land.

It's been charged, and it's certainly a fact, that the cost of land has escalated extremely. It's been charged that it's the agricultural land reserve that's doing it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will please come to order. I ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and all members of the committee to come to order.

The member now speaking briefly alluded to legislation. Of course, that is not within the scope of the committee. I'm sure the committee is aware of that.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quite past that, yes.

[ Page 5123 ]

I don't mind the Minister of Transportation and Highways. He's always good-natured and pleasant. When we get to his estimates, we're going to have a lot of fun with him too.

There's a farm over in the Fraser Valley. It's one of the really good farms there. It's a big farm — 2,100 acres. It was owned by Buckerfield's. That farm was one of the major sources of vegetable production for the various processing plants around the valley, That farm was sold late last fall. It was sold to a Mr. Berezan in conjunction with Norfolk Realty. At $5,000 per acre, the price of that 2,100-acre farm was $10.5 million. The terms of the sale were $2.5 million cash, with a mortgage in favour of Richardson's, who own Buckerfield's, for $8 million at 13 percent, interest payment due in July, full payment due April 1982. That farm is one of these historic subdivisions. It's in a lot of parcels; some are very small, three or four acres, and some are very large. That was late in the fall. In January 1981 the property was resold to Sumas Prairie Estates — a group of ten local businessmen in the Fraser Valley. The terms were $4.6 million cash, and they assumed the $8 million mortgage. That's a profit of $2.1 million in just a couple of months to Berezan and Norfolk. That's the kind of thing that is driving up the price of land.

But the story isn't over. Sumas Prairie began selling off the individual parcels of land at $8,000 an acre. They sold 1, 130 acres for $8.8 million and then sold the remainder for $8 million. The remaining acreage totalled 970 acres. That's $16.8 million, or a profit for them of $4.2 million. Cook now have this property, and they paid $750,000 in cash and again assumed the $8 million mortgage. They're offering the land for sale — and I would very much like to demonstrate this, but I can't.

MR. BARRETT: Open it up. Let's see.

MRS. WALLACE: It's a full-page ad — "Prime Farmland For Sale."

MR. HANSON: That's a visual aid; you might get thrown out.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, we'll just wait and see.

MR. BARRETT: What's the date on it?

MRS. WALLACE: It's dated March 21, 1981. They're offering the land for sale for $10 million. They want to average $10,309 per acre. If they are successful in doing that, they will have netted $2 million. That sale is being handled by Block Brothers. That's a total profit of $8.3 million made on that farm in a very short period of time.

MR. BARRETT: In eight months.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, less than that.

It's driving up the price of farmland. There are some parcels in this advertisement ranging from 3.4 acres to 200 acres.

Not only is this eroding our agricultural base and driving up the price of agricultural land, but it is also putting more pressure on that reserve, because all those 3.4-acre parcels are becoming rural subdivisions and hobby farms. The pressure is on to take it and the adjoining land out of the reserve. That's the, kind of erosion that is occurring, as well as driving up the cost of agricultural land.

I'm pleased to see that the minister has included additional money in the Land Commission budget for fine-tuning. There's some there, but it's not enough. The chairman of the Land Commission tells me that with the amount of funds they're getting and at the rate they're going, it's going to take them 20 years to finish the fine-tuning.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then there'll be no agricultural land left.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it'll be gone by then.

There used to be a day when the Land Commission had funds available to buy sensitive acreage like this in the name of the people in this province and to make it available on a lease-to-purchase or low-cost mortgage, so that the farming community had an opportunity to utilize that base. That day is gone; there are no funds available. This government doesn't believe in that kind of approach, one that utilizes funds in that way to preserve farmland such as that very valuable 21-acre farm in the Fraser Valley. It would have been a boon for this generation and future generations of British Columbians. But no, the minister is not prepared to take that step. He's not prepared to take any action. He lets developers move in and make an excessive $8 million off our farmland and drive up the costs to the farm community. That's an utter disgrace.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I've spoken about this with the Land Commission. Our caucus meets with the Land Commission — we meet with a lot of groups. I asked the commission if they felt that dollars available to buy up these sensitive areas, so that they could be preserved for agriculture, would be a valuable tool. They were unanimous in their expression of support for that position. They would like to have funds available to take that kind of action, but they're not available under this government. Instead, we have a group of ten businessmen making $2.1 million in two months by buying up a piece of property with very little capital invested. There was just a mortgage to Richardson's, who own Buckerfield's, and a little bit of capital. Every time that property changes hands the cost goes up, and every time there's another small parcel taken off there's more pressure on the agricultural land reserve. Every time there's a 3.4 acre parcel with a house put on it and a bit of a hobby farm, or maybe nothing — maybe blacktop garages and swimming-pools — there's more pressure on that agricultural land reserve.

The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) — I hope you will forgive me if I digress a moment — has on two different occasions, once when I was in the House and once. when I wasn't, gotten up and given his very peculiar version of something that happened when I was on the B.C. Marketing Board. I mentioned briefly, the first time he raised this, that his recollection was very peculiar. I think the time has come when I should set the record straight. First of all he spoke about political appointments on that board, and it's true I'm a New Democrat. I wasn't a very active New Democrat at that particular time, but yes, I was a New Democrat. What about the chairman of the board? Dr. George Winters was certainly no New Democrat; he was dean of the agricultural economics department at UBC. I don't know what his politics are, but they certainly aren't New Democrat. The vice chairman, George Okulitch, has now gone. He was a fine

[ Page 5124 ]

gentleman who had long years with the agricultural community; he was a manager of Dairyland and certainly no New Democrat. At one time he ran for the CCF — a farmer respected in the Okanagan Valley for his farming activities.

But I'm saying that the two people who were chairman and vice-chairman of that board at the time we were called in.... When the turkey industry had just ground to a halt and that member was the chairman of the board.... The processors, and not just the government-owned processor.... There was Panco, yes, and the manager of Panco, Mr. Van Kemp, who is certainly no New Democrat, was the chairman of the board of Panco. There was the manager of Pan Ready; it was a co-op — he may have been a New Democrat. I didn't know him at that time. I've met him since, and I think perhaps he is a New Democrat — Mr. Hambly, from Maplewood. What they said, and what had happened in the turkey industry, was that they were absolutely refusing to buy any more turkeys because the storage facilities were absolutely plugged with grade C turkeys. They were paying a cent and half a pound storage on those turkeys, and they couldn't move them. The reason they were getting so many culls was that the marketing board had moved to a one-price system. It didn't matter what quality your turkey was, there was just one price. As a result of that the cull situation was completely out of hand, the processors were ( refusing to buy any more turkeys, there was no room in the barns for the young turkeys that were hatching out, and the hatchery people were going to have to gas those poults. That's when we were called in. We decided, after long hours of negotiation, mainly carried on by the chairman, Dr. Winters, and the vice-chairman, Mr. Okulitch, that the only way out of this was to use the power that we had — and there was nothing illegal about it — to amend an order that board had passed, and to go back to the two-price system which had been in effect before. We went back to the two-price system, and do you know what happened?

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm the last guy to say there was any favouritism in the Chair. But the member for Central Fraser Valley has continually been yacking back and forth in the House. You haven't made any attempt to bring him to order. For the benefit of the speaker on the floor, I think that you should.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point being brought to my attention. For the courtesy that is due to speakers in debate, I would ask all members to do so. There is only one person that can be recognized, and right now that member will continue in debate uninterrupted.

MRS. WALLACE: I never mind the member for Central Fraser Valley, because he doesn't know any more about the rules of this House than he does about what happened with the turkey business.

One other thing on that particular point: as soon as that two-price system was brought into being, the culled turkeys disappeared. They were all grade A. The farmers paid better attention to their finishing, their catching and their hatching, and the whole problem disappeared. The processors started taking turkeys and worked overtime to get that thing moving. The barns were cleaned out, the poults moved in and the whole industry got going again. That member should be grateful, because he was a turkey producer at the time that we had the intestinal fortitude to take that stand. He gets up here and yacks about something that has no relation to what really happened.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to have digressed from the land reserve, but I just felt that the record should be set straight. That member for Central Fraser Valley seems to be a minister-in-waiting for any portfolio that happens to come along. Certainly he would like to be the Minister of Agriculture, but he's not. He seems to like to get involved in these debates.

In summing up my remarks on the Land Commission and on the land reserve, on this side of the House we were very committed to the concept of bringing in the land reserve against the kind of public opinion that was roused because of lack of understanding of what we were doing. We brought the land reserve in and established the Land Commission. Along with that we brought in farm income assurance, which provided a viable return to the farm community. This minister has tried to destroy that program. He hasn't been successful, but he has certainly watered it down. That's putting pressure on the agricultural land reserve as well, because if farmers can't have a viable return and be assured that they're going to be able to continue to operate, then there is pressure on the land reserve even from the farm community. I do not believe that minister has the commitment that he talks about, and I know he doesn't have the commitment of the Premier. The Premier has said as much. He's talked about growing the apples and about getting a little more power away from the Land Commission. They're doing all the wrong things.

That was not the case when we were government. You've heard the former NDP Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), many times and I've heard him many times say that, yes, he had a commitment. But he couldn't have done what he did if he hadn't had the support of the then Premier. I was never so proud of our leader, the former Premier and the Leader of the Opposition at this point in time, as I was just recently when we met the delegation from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He reaffirmed his commitment to the support of agriculture to that group. They know where we stand. They know that we support the land reserve and the farmer. They know that they should have a viable return from the marketplace for insurance and that the next Premier of this province will stand behind that commitment.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to take up much of the time of committee this morning, but since as the member who was just on her feet brought up the question of the agricultural land reserve and the commission that looks after that, I thought it timely that some things be said in this House in regard to those particular questions as they relate to the people of the north. I believe it's about time that the Minister of Agriculture and Food of this province brought in amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission which would return to the people of this province the freedoms they enjoyed prior to the bringing in of that agricultural land reserve and settle what I would like to call the white land claims in this province. From time to time we talk a lot about the Indian land claims in the province of British Columbia. Although I don't totally agree with the question of Indian land claims, I do believe that in some areas there is room for serious discussion with the Indian people of this province in that regard. Nobody talks about the white land claims. Nobody talks about the grave injustice that was done to many of the pioneer people of this province when the agricultural land reserve was brought in by the socialists over there — legisla-

[ Page 5125 ]

tion which we on this side of the House unfortunately have not seen fit to change since 1975.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Are you advocating that they change it?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I am, Mr. Member. Haven't had the nerve to amend....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who hasn't?

MR. KEMPF: ...in order to bring about change which I believe would return that freedom taken from the people of this province during the dark days of the NDP.

Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of chatter from the opposition benches.

When the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission Act were brought in using the broad and ridiculous Canada Land Inventory, many of the people of this province, particularly elderly people, lost their life savings — savings for which they had worked hard for many years, both on a piece of raw land and in other industries, attempting to make something out of that particular piece of raw land; attempting to make a farm out of it by pouring everything into it they made by working out.

MR. BARRETT: Didn't the native Indians too?

MR. KEMPF: Chatter, chatter.

This was their bank account, Mr. Chairman. These people put everything they made into this piece of raw land. It was their investment. It was their pension for the future. They did this because they believed in the land and the private ownership of that land. After they paid their taxes on the land, they considered it to be theirs. What happened, Mr. Chairman? The heavy hand of government came along, and whether or not it was a bona fide farm and whether or not the individual could make a living on that farm it was placed in a reserve for all time. Those pioneers who'd spent a lifetime of work and dreams on that piece of land were told: "We, big brother government, will tell you what you can or cannot do with it."

MR. BARRETT: Tell it to Sweeney.

MR. KEMPF: You were there. You were the one who did it. Shame on that former Premier of this province! Shame on that group over there! I shouldn't call them a group. I don't know where they are this morning. I guess they've taken a long weekend. Shame! Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Firstly, I ask all members to address the Chair. Secondly, hon. members, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) rose a, short time ago on a point of order and the Chair asked members at that time to give each member the courtesy he or she deserves in this House. I would so advise again. I would ask the member to continue in his address to the Chair and I ask others to afford him that courtesy of debate.

MR. KEMPF: I say again, shame on that group, and shame on us for not making the necessary changes that would return those freedoms that were taken from the people of this province.

I don't for one minute believe — I look at the former Premier when I say this — that the ALR was brought in by the socialists to preserve farmland. It wasn't, was it, Mr. Member? What was the real reason?

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to quit, or are you just flapping your mouth?

MR. KEMPF: I'll sit down if you get up and tell us the real reason you brought in the ALR.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it was brought in to ensure the NDP philosophy of the state owning all land and merely leasing it to the people. That's why it was brought in, and you know it, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Why hasn't your government changed it? Why haven't you quit?

MR. KEMPF: Shame on us; we haven't made those changes.

MR. BARRETT: You're gutless.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order. Personal aspersions on members cannot be tolerated in the chamber. If the member speaking would address the Chair and the Leader of the Opposition would refrain from outbursts, we will continue in the task of the committee.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; we want an orderly House.

I say to the minister whose estimates we're debating today: when is the record going to be set straight? When is the injustice going to be rectified? When are the white land claims going to be settled in the province of British Columbia?

MR. HANSON: What? White land claims?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria chatters away. The other day we heard him saying that he didn't mind paying for our snowploughing costs in the north. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we'll get on that subject one of these days.

But don't get me wrong: I believe in the retention of good farmland, land capable of becoming a good farm, capable of doing the things that the socialists over there so proudly say it will. Not one of them over there, who always want every bit of farmland retained, would go on the farms and farm them themselves, nor would they know what to do if they got there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to bet?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I would, Mr. Member. You didn't learn it riding a motorcycle.

MR. BARRETT: What do you think his background is? You're an absolutely ignorant speaker in this chamber.

[ Page 5126 ]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, bring that Leader of the Opposition to order. He's always chattering away and fouling up good debate.

They wouldn't know what to do with the land if they had it. They wouldn't farm it. No, they'd just want somebody else to stay on it and farm it. That's their philosophy. That's why it wasn't for farmland that they brought in the ALR. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you know that well. Again I say I'll sit down if you'll stand up and tell me the real reason for bringing in the agricultural land reserve in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Are you telling the truth? Sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: He said he'd sit down.

MR. KEMPF: You'll get your chance. Chatter, chatter, chatter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one member at a time in the House.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I believe in the retention of good farmland. But to take a map such as the Canada Land Inventory map — poorly conceived in the first place, particularly in central British Columbia — and use it as a tool with which to take the freedom from the people who wanted to remain on the land is an absolute disgrace. Again I say: shame on us for not having changed it.

My questions to the minister are these. When are you going to dispense with the so-called fine tuning, which we all know is just window-dressing, and get down to the real job of mapping farmland in this province? When are you going to bring amendments before this House which will alter the mandate under which the Agricultural Land Commission must make their decisions, and give them flexibility to make logical and rational decisions on the basis of that which is just on the basis of need, and on the basis of whether a piece of ground somewhere in the vast reaches of this great province of ours could be better and more logically utilized than for farmland, than for just growing among the rocks and brush a few blades of grass. Bring in those amendments, Mr. Chairman, which would enable the commission to do, its jobs properly. In so doing we leave the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet to make those kinds of decisions which — whether right or wrong — are always deemed to be political decisions and are always seen as a giving away of political plums by the government.

When, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are we going to take a look at the rules which govern the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land in this province with a view to considering the northern two-thirds of British Columbia? We constantly, here in Victoria, wear blinders when it comes to recognizing that there is an awful lot more to British Columbia than just Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley. There is a vast rural province out there beyond the little hamlet of Hope, and I think it's about time that too is recognized. It's a large province, it's a diverse province and it has special needs. There are special needs out there other than the needs of those in the lower mainland and other than those which are considered because of their political implications. When, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, are we going to recognize that fact and bring in legislation for the north? When, I ask again, are we going to do something for rural British Columbia? When are we going to settle the white land claims?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would like to answer a number of questions, but listening to some of the comments across the way while the member for Omineca spoke, I'd like to deal with his speech first, because, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, the member for Omineca has raised a couple of issues in his speech which I think are fair and just, and I appreciate his comments. He speaks for the northern part of British Columbia, and he's quite right in saying that many times we make decisions or look at the lower Fraser Valley or at Vancouver Island and we forget that the major part of our province is the northern part of our province. I'm aware of the problems that he speaks of: investment in the land by those people who took raw land and put it into farming and looked at it as investment and as a pension for their old age. We've attempted to address that, and I'll even say that the former administration attempted to address it through their farm income assurance of that time and through other programs, which we have in some cases amended and in other cases supported; and we brought in additional programs of our own to assist the farm community.

I said in my opening comments that we in British Columbia outside the farm community have to recognize that we have a social responsibility to those people who farm the agricultural lands of this province. I'm aware of the hardship cases that are mentioned by the member, in many cases nonviable farmland that is in the reserve. We've attempted to address the applications that have come in. We've attempted to deal with the appeals, and I must say, though, Mr. Member, that the fine-tuning process is not an exercise of window dressing. I sincerely believe that it is a real job of mapping real farmland, as you mentioned, Mr. Member. As minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission I can only assure you that the activities of the commission and their efforts will be administered in an attempt to relieve some of those hardships and properly identify true agricultural farmland in this province. I apologize to the member that it might take a little time — and in many cases some people's problems are not identified as quickly as possible — but we will make every effort to achieve the goal of identifying true agricultural land for future food production in this province.

The member mentioned a few items in regard to bringing in an amendment to the act or a new act regarding altering the mandate, relieving ELUC, etc. I appreciate those comments, but I just want to make the point perfectly clear to the five members of the opposition who are so interested in agricultural land that they aren't here to question the minister responsible....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Leggatt) knows full well that the minister responsible is in the House to answer questions mainly from the opposition. Other ministers are out of this House because they have their responsibilities too. But yesterday when I started my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I looked across the way, and do you know who I saw? Two members of the opposition sitting in their chairs. There were two members of a party that has gone around and said: "We support the agricultural land. We are so concerned." I didn't even see the second member

[ Page 5127 ]

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) in here. He spends most of his time in the Land Commission office, and he was out. The only one I saw was my critic, whom I appreciate. She does have a good solid feel for agricultural land in the industry in this province; I will say that to her publicly. The former Minister of Agriculture was in, but I think he was doing tax returns — I'm not sure. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I smile when I hear some of the comments across the way in regard to their concern.

I want to say very clearly that this party allows its members the freedom in this province to speak out on how they feel about their constituents and about their concerns. We allow that freedom. That party over there will never allow its members to speak out; they crunch them down. I've got some historical documents that I may put forward in this debate before I'm through, which will point out how they squeezed out the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) right in his own office. He knows how tight they squeeze down their members. I might just bring that forward to prove the point.

MR. HANSON: We have speaker boxes in our office. I'll tell the minister why probably many of our members are not sitting in the House and listening to this minister. It's because what he says and what he does are absolutely two different things. What we heard today from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is the real Socred agricultural land policy. That is the policy. He is honest on that side of the House in terms of his perception of the land reserve and the way the Socreds see it.

I'd like to read to the minister a few lines from the press coverage of the Spetifore case, which goes back to 1977. This illustrates very clearly the myth and reality of the Socred agricultural land policy. Let me bring you up to date with a little bit of history on the Spetifore potato proposal. Mr. Spetifore had come to the government asking for financial assistance to subsidize a price war that was going on with McCain's potato processing. One of the difficulties in presenting some of these myth and reality cases of the Socreds on the land reserve is that they are extremely complex. One has to have the correspondence. One has to see what they write to each other and what they say to the people in the constituency who are close political friends. In most instances that is denied the opposition. We have to fight and scrap and work hard and dig to get this information. But when we get it, we get an ironclad case of political patronage, which characterizes so many land deals in this province as they relate to agricultural land.

Think back again to this press clipping on the Spetifore case. Mr. Spetifore was abandoned by the Social Credit cabinet. He came for financial help, which perhaps should have been offered to him. But because the Social Credit government had tried to make so much political hay attacking the NDP's efforts in establishing a processing industry to assist farmers in British Columbia, they felt that politically they could not help Mr. Spetifore, no matter whether it was justified or not. They had to cut him adrift.

Mr. Spetifore set up a potato-processing plant in Delta to try to provide for a processing infrastructure for potato producers in the Fraser Valley. He ran into a price war with the Maritimes-based McCain Foods and another major company. They undercut him in a price war. He couldn't handle it; I don't think anyone could have handled it. They undercut his market, because they were majors. He came to the government asking for assistance. They cut him loose.

Let me read to you from a report in the Vancouver Province of 1977. These are remarks of the minister which I think are very interesting, after having witnessed the unfolding of the entire Spetifore scandal. The article is entitled: "Spetifore Gets Roasted and Throws in His Chips." The minister is asked by the B.C. editor of the Province, Mr. Malcolm Turnbull, why he refused assistance to Mr. Spetifore. Let me just read this to you. I want to remind you, though, that Mr. Hewitt went to cabinet on Mr. Spetifore's behalf to try to get assistance and was shot down on the politics of it.

"Hewitt said after the closure announcement, 'The government can't bail out everyone who fails to make a go of it. Spetifore has substantial other assets, mainly in landholdings, within the agricultural land reserve.' He suggested that Spetifore sell these and refinance, thereby reducing his debt load. He even went so far as to suggest that there is now a possibility of getting some of the land out of the farmland freeze" — wait for it, Mr. Chairman — "though this decision should be up to the government- appointed independent Land Commission."

What hypocrisy this is, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: Read it again. I didn't get that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Turnbull comes to Mr. Hewitt and says: "Why are you refusing to assist Mr. Spetifore?" Mr. Hewitt says: "We can't bail out people. It's our philosophy, you know, that they go belly up if they can't take it in the marketplace." We can see some BCRIC analogies in that. He then went on to say that Spetifore has substantial other assets, mainly in landholdings with the agricultural land reserve. He suggested that Spetifore sell these and refinance, thereby reducing his debt load. He even went so far as to suggest that there is now a possibility of getting some of the land out of the farmland freeze, "though this decision" — underlined, underscored — "should be up to the government- appointed independent Land Commission." What a farce, Mr. Chairman.

That minister then took the land out of the reserve himself. And he asked why our members aren't sitting here listening to every subtle nuance of his ululations in this House. It's ridiculous. What he says in this House and what he does are two quite different things. They pay off their friends with farmland.

I want to ask a little question here of the minister. I want to ask him about the special ELUC meeting that was held just to hear Mr. Spetifore, all his consultants, a few of the Delta council and a couple of GVRD people — all his supporters — on July 16, 1980. It was 22 minutes long. I want to ask him a couple of questions about that meeting. I want him to tell me about the meeting the night before in the Laurel Point Inn between the MLA for Delta and the proponents of the meeting. I would like him to tell this House: did he know about that meeting? I want him to tell me about the special ELUC meeting to hear Mr. Spetifore's case the following morning at 8:30 or 9, July 16, 1980.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the second member for Victoria's comments going back to the french-fried potato plant and quoting from a Malcolm Turnbull article in theVancouver Province — Malcolm sometimes takes a little licence, I think, with the facts, but he's a good reporter — he

[ Page 5128 ]

didn't include all the information that I'm aware of and that I believe Malcolm Turnbull is probably aware of — that there were staff reports prior to the plant proceeding. There was a Woods Gordon consultants' report regarding that plant and the viability of that plant. My staff and 1, on a number of occasions, met and made every effort to assist with the plant once Mr. Spetifore made the decision to proceed — as any businessman has the right to do in the free marketplace — in trying to make that plant viable. Unfortunately it wasn't successful. Though Mr. Spetifore, in many cases, has been somewhat painted as a speculator with regard to agricultural land by people who want to make political points and by some of the people across the room, I do recognize that Mr. Spetifore held the land in question — that was really a Delta municipality application to ELUC — in his family, I believe, since 1935 or 1936. He's not a man that came on the scene to acquire land and make millions, but he's a man who's devoted his life to agriculture — and not just to agriculture and the production of produce. He's a man who is willing to put up his dollars to create a value-added processing. plant, with regard to french-fried potatoes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: Tell me about the meeting. I've asked you a question about the meeting.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I've told the member before that sometimes he gets too excited. I'm trying to respond to the first part of the question, which was really to do with the french-fried potato plant. Now we've done that. Now we'll move to the second part, which I find humorous.

The member seems quite accurate in referring to the meeting he mentioned on July 16, 1980. I haven't had the time to check the records. I can't agree or deny that was the date because I don't have records in front of me such as he has. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. It was 22 minutes long. If it was 22 minutes long, fine. I don't know whether it was 21 minutes, 22 minutes or half an hour.

It was an information meeting to which the members of ELUC went and met with representatives of the Delta municipality, whose application it was. As the member knows full well, I believe there were four property owners involved in the Delta municipality application to ELUC. The member also knows that municipal governments and regional districts apply — they do not appeal — to the Environment and Land Use Committee with regard to appeals dealing with municipalities or regional districts. The individual property owner applies to the Land Commission, and then has a right of appeal to ELUC.

I can only say that it was an informational meeting. It was not a special or secret meeting, but an informational meeting so that members of the Environment and Land Use Committee could make decisions that were well informed, based on fact and not politically motivated. It was an honest attempt by members of ELUC to get all the information they possibly could. The member does not mention that there was a representative of the Land Commission there. The presentation was made by the Delta municipality, not by Mr. Spetifore. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me right, I think the Delta municipality asked Mr. Spetifore, on one occasion, to make a comment.

The last part of his question is the really fun part, I think: "What went on in the Laurel Point hotel?" I don't know. I wasn't there. I assume the MLA for Delta (Mr. Davidson) met with the Delta municipal council and his constituents the night before the meeting. If he wants to build something into that, fine and dandy. I don't know what went on there. It's silly nonsense, Mr. Chairman. ELUC met to get information. What went on at the Laurel Point hotel — if they had a drink or two — I don't know and I don't care.

MR. HANSON: Well, the meeting in Laurel Point Inn is of interest to me as a passing curiosity. Mr. Spetifore and his group had a meeting there with the member for Delta, and the bill for the meeting room was sent to the parliament buildings. I'm asking the minister: is it the policy of the government to pay for meeting rooms and for hosting proponents of an application for exclusion from the ALR?

I have a copy of the bill here. I'd like someone to give a copy to the minister. The bill goes to room 243 in the parliament buildings. I'd like the minister to tell me who paid for Mr. Spetifore's meeting room at the Laurel Point Inn. He thinks it's funny. He thinks perhaps the public should pay for.... Maybe this was paid for privately, but I think the public has a right to know. I think we have a right to know whether the people of British Columbia hosted Mr. Spetifore at the Laurel Point Inn prior to the ELUC meeting the following morning. I think that's a legitimate question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if it's within the purview of the minister whose vote is before us.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member, by inference, indicates that the government paid for that. I'm not sure what I see here, but I gather it's called a function arrangement sheet for Laurel Point Inn. It says the nature of the function is a meeting in Salon A, on Tuesday, July 15, 1980, at 8 p.m.; name of representative, Mrs. Wendy Merluk — I don't know the lady — room 243, Parliament Buildings. I can only say to you that my room numbers are 337 and 338, so it didn't come to my office. The person who arranged for the meeting room — because this is a booking of a function — doesn't work in my office but in room 243, and I'm sure the member would probably know whose room that is. The name of the organization that is booking the room, believe it or not, is the Delta council. The price agreed upon was $50 a room, and there were going to be approximately 15 people there. The arrangements were to have ice water and ashtrays.

This is not a bill; it's a booking sheet. It is not paid for by the government, it is not to my office, and I would suggest to the member that he can quickly and easily find out who paid for the room by going to Laurel Point Inn and asking if he can see the record to see who paid for it. But this is not a billing; it's a booking. It's not out of my office, and it's not by government.

It's a silly argument. If he has a cheque paid for by my ministry or signed by me, then present it; table it in this House. Say what you want to say. But don't imply that this is a billing which the government paid for. I've read it out to you. Get up and apologize. It's a booking of a meeting room by, possibly — and I don't know, but I say it — the secretary of the MLA for Delta, who is doing a service for the Delta municipal council. They ask him to book a room, invite him to a meeting as the MLA — and I'm making a lot of assumptions here — and that is what happened. But don't say this is a billing paid for by government; it's a booking. I'd like to file this.

[ Page 5129 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Documents cannot be filed in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll file it at the end of this sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can ask leave of the House to do whatever the House permits. I'll also remind the minister and the first member for Victoria that we are discussing vote 10.

MR. HANSON: For the information of the minister, this is in fact the form of a bill that is sent to the parliament buildings. It's not a lot of money, only $50, but this is a particularly controversial case that has been characterized by patronage all the way along, right from the beginning.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Prove it.

MR. HANSON: This is a bill from the Laurel Point Inn.

HON. MR. HEWITT: This isn't a bill.

MR. HANSON: Oh, yes, it is. My question is: why is it sent to the parliament buildings?

HON. MR. HEWITT: To advise the room has been booked, you turkey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister will come to order. The Chair is having a bit of trouble identifying this particular debate with the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

MR. HANSON: What I'm trying to ascertain in my role as a member of the opposition, working in conjunction with members on this side of the House who are interested in the performance of the government as it relates to the protection of farmland, is to what extent Mr. Spetifore's and the other property owners' proposals were assisted by the government. Did it extend even to the paying of rooms for them to meet in prior to the ELUC meeting? I know it's not a lot of money, but symbolically it is. When I read out the initial article in the Province, where the Minister of Agriculture states that Mr. Spetifore could put to bed some of his debt by having some of his land excluded from the land reserve — however, that would have to be done by an independent body like the Land Commission.... We know the way the issue has developed. As history has shown us, the minister himself was responsible for taking it out. He didn't tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will have to be withdrawn, hon. member. You cannot impute a false motive like that to another hon. member of the House. Will the member please withdraw the last statement?

MR. HANSON: I withdraw. I'll reword for you, Mr. Chairman: subsequent events proved that the minister's statement on November 14, 1977, did not come to being. What came to being was that he himself took it out. What he was doing was indicating to Mr. Spetifore that perhaps the avenue for him to deal with his debt and his land was to proceed in applying for his land to be taken out. The minister knew full well that the Land Commission would deny that, because it is good farmland — according to the Land Commission, not according to me or the member for Delta. He's not a soil scientist; neither am I. That's not our job as politicians. That's why the Land Commission was set up: to keep us out of it. They're right into it up to their necks. The documents show that and it's a matter of public record. You stated one thing and you did another in Windermere, and in the Gloucester Properties as well. It's our responsibility to bring that to the attention of this House. The documents show it. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) states your policy on farmland, not you.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: There's lots of documentation.

I would like to have the minister's assurance that he will check this minor question and come back. If it's paid privately, fine. I'll stand in my place and say: "Thank you very much. It is now at rest." I am just asking in my critic's role: why should the public pay for such a thing? If they didn't, fine. That's my question. I'd like the assurance of the minister.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, while it is somewhat unusual for the Deputy Speaker to rise in debate, I think the member who just spoke raised some very interesting questions that certainly deserve a full and complete answer. I wish to take my place in this debate and assure the member that not one cent of government money expended on the meeting was through my office. Yes, the arrangements were made though my office as a courtesy to Delta council. My secretary is Mrs. Merluk; she did make those arrangements. No bill was ever sent to my office or received by me. To the best of my knowledge, all bills were paid by those in attendance; not one penny came out of any form of government or out of my office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the comments of the member for Delta, because I was making a number of assumptions there in my response to the second member for Victoria. I just want to touch on the other part of his argument, which basically dealt with statements to have been made by myself according to one Mr. Malcolm Turnbull in 1977. Bear that in mind, Mr. Chairman — 1977. I have just had a short discussion with my deputy minister and we believe — and I'd be quite prepared to obtain the document to ensure that we're reasonably correct — that Mr. Spetifore had a cash-flow problem with regard to his plant. Going by memory I believe that the Woods, Gordon report in one of its recommendations recommended that Mr. Spetifore might be able to relieve some of this cash-flow problem and some of the debt load on the company by selling the parkland to the GVRD. That parkland, Mr. Chairman, is outside of the agricultural land reserve. I believe it is approximately 240 acres. I'd be quite pleased to attempt to get that report from our 1977 files and either correct my statement here or file the recommendation which indicated that that was one thing he could do.

I think that would relieve that member's concern. as one of the agricultural critics, that I'm alleged to have made a statement in 1977 which indicated that l, was going to get his land out of the reserve. It may well be that that land in question that I was talking about was not in the ALR at all. I'd be happy to get that report, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 5130 ]

MR. HANSON: First of all, in response to the member for Delta, I take his word that that was in fact the case. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the sense that Laurel Point Inn says that that is the mailing address for the billing. But he stood in his place in this House and indicated to me that no such bill was ever received or paid by his office. Therefore, as a member of this House, I have to take his assurance on that matter.

The Spetifore case is a very long and complicated one, and it's very complicated and difficult to present it in a chronological sequence in this House. But there is no doubt that Mr. Spetifore has had that land for a long time. There is no doubt that Mr. Spetifore had worked that area and been a long-time resident there and had been very proud of the property that he did own. In actual fact, the land was in the agricultural land reserve and regarded by the Land Commission as farmland. Those are givens.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I wonder if we could ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Agriculture not to interrupt while the second member for Victoria is taking his place in committee.

MR. HANSON: So here we have a long-time resident with a fairly large piece of property — 523 acres, I believe. The minister had indicated in his 1977 statement that one way of redressing his financial difficulties would be to go through the appropriate agency to seek an exclusion — not through the ministry, not through ELUC, but through the appropriate agency. He states that very clearly in this particular article. Now at the same time, the proponents of having this land removed recognized very clearly that going to the Land Commission would be a pointless exercise, because the Land Commission had stated very clearly that the land is in the reserve. The land, with proper irrigation improvements, could be improved up to class 2 — some of it is less, and so on. Again it was clearly worthy of retention as farmland.

What I am stating, Mr. Chairman, is that on that side of the House there were two things said to Mr. Spetifore. Through this article that Mr. Spetifore no doubt read, he knew that if you get some of your land out of the reserve, that is one way of getting your debt load reduced, or at the same time you could go to an independent body. But there is also another message that goes to Mr. Spetifore, and that is: you're wasting your time to go through the Land Commission; go through the regional district; go through the Delta council with your application. Now the timing on that is very interesting, because the Delta council decision to proceed was made very quickly. It was one item in a long list of items of business the Delta council pushed through very quickly. The required public hearing was called just a few days after that. There was very little attention in terms of public notification. Under the act there is no obligation that adjacent property owners be circularized so that they know what's happening.

Some of the principals at that meeting speaking on behalf of Mr. Spetifore are very interesting. For example, Mr. Ian Paton, an agrologist, is a consultant for Mr. Spetifore. In December 1980, after the public hearings, the ELUC meetings and so on, he was appointed to the Land Commission. He was not a party to that decision; let me make that very clear. But the arguments of Mr. Paton that the land was trapped in, that there were urban developments around it, that it was encompassed — that is the point I want to make in this House. If Mr. Paton's view that agricultural land that has urban development around it is not worthy of retention in the land reserve takes hold, then we will have no land reserve in British Columbia. Think of the Saanich Peninsula with rural farmland areas encompassed by urban settlements and the Kelowna area where there is farmland with urban settlements scattered around it. If the philosophy of new Land Commission appointees is that....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We'll be talking about gravel pits later. Perhaps I can have the attention of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) at that point.

To continue, if the philosophical orientation of the new appointees, as indicated by the appointment of Mr. Paton, is that rural land surrounded by urban development must be infilled, it is not worth saving, you can't salvage it, it's too late, then too bad for the public of British Columbia, too bad for future generations in this province.

MR. KEMPF: Have you been off the Island?

MR. HANSON: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member continues, with no interruptions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the truth hurts. I think that's why they rustle and stir. I think if we asked the people of the province who don't come to this chamber, who have never sat in the gallery in this House, and for whom the names of the people sitting in here are just names that appear from time to time in the newspapers, what they think happened on the George Spetifore land proposal — did the Social Credit government try to assist a political friend on a massive payoff? — they will say they believe that to be the case. The facts stand there. It's an assessment of the data. It's not something we dreamed up. When you look at the clippings in the provincial library, when you look at the correspondence, when you have the Agricultural Land Commission....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: If the earlier remarks of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) are how he actually feels, he should give an assurance to this House that he's going to give a deadline to that minister to comply with his requests or he's going to vote against this estimate. He's never been one to put his money where his mouth is. He can babble away into a microphone....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 10. The Chairman will try to maintain order. The member will maintain relevancy to the vote before us.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm responding to the remarks of the member for Omineca when he was on his feet, speaking on this vote and advocating particular views. I'm

[ Page 5131 ]

addressing myself to those views. I think they are extremely dangerous, because they reflect the Social Credit government's policy on farmland.

MR. KEMPF: They reflect the wishes of the people and they're dangerous, are they?

MR. HANSON: Thank goodness you don't represent the wishes of the broad majority of British Columbia. The Spetifore case is a classic because there is so much interference by politicians. We have so little agricultural land that we can't afford that interference. Thank goodness many farming people of British Columbia are coming to the realization that in actual fact the New Democratic Party represents their interests and always has done, and it's not the Social Credit government.

I want to give you another example. We're going to come back to this next week, but I'd like to touch a few bases. I want to talk briefly about a piece of farmland in the Columbia-Windermere area. Here we had a situation where application had been made to the Land Commission in earlier times to have a piece of land removed from the agricultural land reserve. It had been denied to people like the Detmerses who owned the land, because they didn't have enough political clout. Somebody who came along a little later did. These people are called the Wengers. They knew the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) very well, and they made application to have this land taken out.

Sorry, let me back up a little bit. They made application to the Detmerses. They put an option on the property, subject to it coming out of the land reserve. I believe the option was for $30,000, and the end price was $110,000. Through the assistance of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, they made application through the regional district for the land to be taken out of the reserve. But the ELUC committee of cabinet decided to be cute. They knew there would be political flak in the Columbia-Windermere area if it was taken out, so they cooked up a special wrinkle to this case. The application was really to get the gravel. Gravel is like gold; gravel is millions. They cooked up a wrinkle to have the land left in the Agricultural land reserve, but to be a gravel pit with an argument of reclamation afterwards. Reclamation was absolutely impossible.

I'm trying to give you a picture of a very complicated case. The documentation is extensive, but I want to try to highlight the main points. We started with an elderly couple with a piece of property who made application and were refused. We then have a friend of the minister, the local MLA, who assisted in steering this application through the regional district and into ELUC, of which he is a member, with a proposal to leave the land in the reserve to be a gravel pit with a proposal of later reclamation. Now the order-in-Council, which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Agriculture and Food voted on and signed, included no criteria or obligation of reclamation at all.

What was at stake in this question? It was between $5 million and $7 million to a political friend. That is the kind of interference we're getting in the Land Commission. It's a matter of public record. It's not something I'm dreaming up here in my place in Victoria. It's a matter for anyone — including the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is trying to do her glaring routine — to go to the Land Commission in Burnaby and review the file and see what kind of political interference there has been in this case.

It gets back to the argument I'm making of the myth and the reality. We have what they say, which is the myth, and the reality is the Spetifore and Wenger cases.

Let me proceed a little further on the Wenger case. A couple of background issues were happening at the same time this application was being made and stickhandled through the friends in the regional district and the Socred structure. A Columbia-Windermere study is going on, and a lot of money is being expended on a proper planning basis for the Columbia-Windermere district. The study is of certain areas where the urban development would be, where the farmland would be and where the gravel would be extracted. Where the gravel would be extracted — not on the farmland — but here in the middle of farmland surrounded by large ranches, many of them Social Credit supporters in the past, maybe not any more....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Wrong ministry.

MR. HANSON: It's Agriculture. Your name is on all this documentation. I'll be happy to read it all to you.

A nice piece of land: 23 acres, hayland, used to be vegetable farming, class 2 and 3 improved, large ranches all around — Elkhorn ranch and so on. All the farmers in the whole of the Columbia-Windermere Valley are watching this case as it's proceeding. saying that there couldn't possibly be political interference because: why for him or her and not me? Is that the way it’s going to work? Either it's the same for all of us or it doesn't work at all. That's the way the Agricultural Land Commission works. It is so fragile. It is the good will and faith of the farmers that keeps it all together. One bad Spetifore decision or one bad Wenger decision, and it all comes unravelled. The irony is that in all these instances — Gloucester Properties, Spetifore, Wenger — something always happens at the end to stop it. The way it's handled there is always a technicality. There's always one bungle; somebody drops the ball. Bang! It stops.

MR. MACDONALD: Thank goodness they're not competent.

MR. HANSON: Absolutely!

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: What do you know about farmland?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly when members have stopped the interruptions, the second member for Victoria could be permitted to continue in his rightful place in debate.

MR. HANSON: I want to summarize the end chapter, as we know it now, on these three cases. In the Wenger case ELUC takes the land and says: "We'll leave it in the ALR; you can have your gravel pits." Here's where the ball is dropped: ELUC forgets that the Agricultural Land Commission retains the authority to adjudicate over the Soil Conservation Act. and an application is required by the Wengers to the Agricultural Land Commission to get approval to remove the rich top soil to get at the gold underneath — the gravel. The Agricultural Land Commission denies it. So the people who have tried so hard to have this land taken out for a gravel pit end up with $110,000 of hayland, and their end objective has been denied. Case number one.

[ Page 5132 ]

The Spetifore case. What do we have there? The Land Commission objects to it, but they're not involved in the process. ELUC takes it out, with a number of criteria subject to the development of housing, the acquisition of parkland by the GVRD or the Delta council, floodplain reclamation, etc. To their credit, the GVRD sat down and looked very carefully at this decision and the way it had been handled.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) called them "turncoats." I think that is a terrible allegation to the GVRD directors.

MR. KEMPF: What do you call them?

MR. HANSON: For the member for Omineca to call the GVRD directors "turncoats" because they took a second look at the Spetifore thing is a disgrace.

MR. KEMPF: They changed their minds completely. They fell off the wrong side of the fence. You know it.

MR. HANSON: How did they fall off the wrong side of the fence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's address the Chair. The member will have a future opportunity to take his place in debate and to enlarge on his comments. Right now we have the second member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: The member for Omineca will undoubtedly relinquish his place in any subsequent debate on this issue, and he will vote with the government on every vote from now until the end of this session. It's guaranteed.

The end of the Spetifore case is interesting. Because the criteria of the order-in-council were not met, we now have a piece of land still in the land reserve. Somebody dropped the ball again.

Finally, there's the Gloucester Properties case. Here we have a situation where the supreme court is going to make a ruling, I believe, in September. Hopefully they're going to rule that it should be farmland, that there was interference and that all of these parcels should be taken back into the agricultural land reserve. I would certainly advocate that the NDP next government should look very carefully at these bungles in the past, take this land back into the reserve where it belongs, and shore up the Agricultural Land Commission, which has been battered by this government's political interference. I'm going to take my place now. I reserve the right to get up later on. At various times I'm going to get up and go through different cases clearly showing political interference on the, part of this government, and that the Minister of Agriculture's so-called proselytizing in his support of the ALR is just so much baloney.

MR. RITCHIE: Having listened to that droning speech by that sudden expert on agricultural land, I would suggest today, speaking on vote 10, that he's almost ready for the Johnny Carson show.

Just to respond to a few comments by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), where she suggested that I was sitting on the sidelines waiting for an opportunity in cabinet, I'd like to say to that member that for at least the next 25 years, my chances are much better than hers.

She talked about the breakup of the Buckerfield's farm. That really surprises me, because we know that whenever it's to their political advantage, they go against the corporate farm operation or any national company. They seem to have changed their minds here. They feel that possibly the large corporate James Richardson group should have been left to farm in that area of 2,100 acres. The move of the Buckerfield's organization, I think, was one that we can all admire, in that they have allowed that farm to be broken up, as it was already subdivided, and sold to independent, smaller farmers. I think we can respect them for that and not get so critical and negative about what has happened to that farm.

We know that over the years the canning industry had contracts with the Buckerfield's organization, and drew a lot of their raw materials from that land. That won't change. The only difference is that they won't be dealing with a large corporation. They'll be dealing with independent family farmers. I would also like to ask those over there who would be critical of anyone who would gain some sort of advantage through a piece of land, their home or anything else, how they do whenever they come around to selling their home land or whatever. There isn't one over there that could sit up and prove in this House, or anywhere else, that they're prepared to sell I anything they've got at the original cost. Why don't you grow up and have some sense?

Then she talked about the accusations that I was supposed to have made with respect to the appointments to the B.C. Marketing Board. Had she done her homework — but obviously they don't; they depend on the press for all their research — she would have noted that I referred to this particular situation the first time I spoke in this House. The last time I referred to it was April 3, 1981. If you check the records, through you, Mr. Chairman, you'll note that I mentioned the names Rusty Freeze and Barbara Wallace as appointees to that board. Those are admitted NDP members, socialist members, who were appointed to that board. That was the message that I wanted to get across, because we were talking about political payoffs. That was a political payoff if ever there was one.

She also said that the great dispute was over price. Am I allowed to use "untruth"?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, anyway, she was incorrect. She said the dispute was over pricing policy. I'll explain that for the benefit of the House, and in all fairness to the farmers of this province, and particularly the poultry farmers, who were suffering under their heavy hand.

A number of years ago the poultry industry in this province and other provinces felt they were not getting a fair deal in respect to the wholesalers' grading of their products, and they came to the agreement to have their products sold "f.o.b. the farm, no grade." That agreement was reached first of all by the chicken people of British Columbia, and then by the turkey people. What happened was that when the socialist government bought the Panco Poultry operations and all those farms, they realized they were no longer socialists, they were capitalists, and they had to do something to make more money. What they did was to attempt to change this rule. That was the thing we fought over, Madam Member. That was the thing that we debated. It was over that issue that you and your colleagues threatened me and the board that if we didn't do what you told us we would be kicked out. Oh,

[ Page 5133 ]

yes. That's correct. At the point of exhaustion in debating and dealing with them they finally said: "We'll kick you out of office if you don't do what you're told." At that time I told them I would not do what I was told by any socialist government, I would do what the producers wished. We called a meeting, and you will recall that very meeting when you stood there and told those producers that you knew better what was good for those producers than they knew themselves. You will recall walking to the podium, with your pen in hand and your illegal document in the other hand, and signing it on behalf of the producers.

If I may go on a little bit further here, proof of that whole situation being illegal is in the fact that it never stuck. I was in the Minister of Agriculture's office — it was either the day after or two days after — to point out to him that his appointees to that board had committed an illegal act and that I and the industry were going to defy it. We did, and it never stuck. The heavy hand of the socialist government attempted to gouge the poultry industry of British Columbia to cover up for their wild spending. They knew they couldn't make it otherwise.

There's another part to this story that must go on record, and I intend to tell this story over and over again. That is that when they decided to purchase the whole complex of poultry production — which the Waffle Manifesto says is the thing they should be doing in order to control it — they moved in without any regard whatsoever for the regulations laid down by the Marketing Board, which indicated that any producer is only allowed a particular level of production and whenever a unit is purchased they are bound to go to the board to have it transferred. The socialist government of the day did not do that. They went in there and bought it, and they not only bought it at a high price, but the price was actually much higher than what the producers were prepared to pay and what the seller had agreed to allow it to go for. They went out and outbid them. Then the problem arose over the quota, and it was another time when we said: "No, the government is no different from anyone else in this industry. They will have to abide by the rules like anyone else." And that's what they did. The record shows that the producers of this province won out over that socialist government, because today that is all broken up and in the hands of independent producers.

I would now like to go on to some of the opening remarks made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. This is one point when I'm going to publicly disagree with our Minister of Agriculture and Food, because he thought she was a pretty good critic. I don't agree with that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make that "fair."

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I can't even agree with that.

She opened her remarks by saying: "Farmers are in a sad state of affairs." I'm going to tell you that you can really make things look very sad indeed. It's quite easy. I would imagine that the numbers that are included in this figure involve many people who are either doing it as a hobby — like myself — or doing it only because they're in the land reserve and with a small parcel of land. The fact of the matter is that we have a healthy agricultural industry in this province under the able leadership of our Minister of Agriculture and his staff. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the records are there to show it.

She goes on to say, as others do.... I find it very hard to accept and understand because one gets up and says, "Spend less money," and the other gets up and says: "Spend more money." I wish they would stand up together and tell us what their policy really is. She's critical about not spending enough money in agriculture. I have heard the minister tell the farmers of British Columbia that the amount of money spent does not determine the success of the industry — far from it. It's how well it's spent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Swan Valley Foods.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm going to go into that. The member mentioned Swan Valley Foods. Let's talk about how money can be spent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Under vote 10 we're talking about this minister's administrative actions and the entire field of agriculture under this minister. Hon member, it would be somewhat inconsistent to go back. We found ourselves in that problem yesterday in committee. I hoped that one experience would be sufficient for the duration of the committee.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, you're making it very difficult for me to bring out my message. I have continually heard a member relate back to the past in order to compare it with the future. If I'm going to be prohibited from doing that, then it makes it very difficult. If I get too far out of order, I don't mind being called to order again, but I must be given some latitude in order to get the true message out.

Mr. Chairman, speaking about vote 10, as the member did, I want to talk a little bit about their policy of spending money and compare it with ours. Their policy was one of getting into the marketplace and getting control. I believe it was at their 1975 convention that they said they should consider spending money on facilities to produce farm equipment — subsidized if necessary.

Their policy included spending money on Swan Valley Foods, which lost us over $8.5 million maybe it's going to go over $10 million in lost spending money. Mr. Chairman, the socialist government spending money in the agricultural industry to help the farmers of this province.... South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. lost us about $4 million. IOK Poultry Ltd. was another project that was designed to help the farmers of British Columbia, and this NDP government, through their spending policy to help agriculture, lost $192,000 in that particular project. I could go on and on, but I won't, because I think it gets boring. It's necessary at times to bring these things up so that we have a true comparison to remind the people of what we could have had had they stayed in power.

There's another point I wish to bring up here that appeared in one of their conventions in respect to the farm marketing board's 1971 convention. I will make sure that all of the farmers of British Columbia get this record, because the farm marketing boards are made up of producers only. They are also consumers. In the 1971 convention, this party came out in favour of putting labour representation on the farm marketing boards. I wonder if Jim Kinnaird would have been a candidate for that. God help us!

In their 1971 convention program. It also said that they would promote organic farming by subsidy, if necessary everything subsidized, bought or controlled.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to get on now, and I'll just be a little more positive about what can be done and what is being

[ Page 5134 ]

done for agriculture. In saying this I'm going to spread the credit for the great benefits that the farmers of British Columbia have been enjoying over the past few years between a few ministries, because....

MR. HALL: Get those people to listen to you down there.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, protect me against that wild second member for Surrey. He's interrupting my train of thought.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, whether we like to believe it or not, agriculture cannot survive through government buying in and controlling, spending a lot of money and getting involved in the affairs of the farmers. Agriculture will survive best when it's given strong leadership and when governments of the day help in developing a large marketplace. Here is where I'd like to give credit to two other ministers who've played a great role in making our industry as healthy as it is. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) has been very successful in bringing many people to our province, all of whom must eat, and with the aggressive, progressive and modern approach to marketing by our Minister of Agriculture and Food and his staff, those people will be consuming B.C. — produced products when they're here. Then we also know that through the efforts of our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the greatest minister of industry and small business that this province has ever had — and the records show it — we saw around 50,000 people come to live in British Columbia last year. That's what makes a healthy agricultural industry; that's what makes it strong.

We're not finished yet, because I'm going to tell you that with the things that are being carried out by that ministry and the success of our Minister of Tourism, we're going to have an ever-increasing market for B.C.-produced products. That's what I call a positive approach to the development of an agriculture industry.

On a bit of a serious note for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I see our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is in the House at the moment, and I would like him to hear this brief comment — in respect of the list of farming items that are exempt from social service tax, I have a problem in my constituency at the moment over a piece of equipment known as the Bobcat. The problem appears to be that the people responsible for the administration of this particular program find it difficult to place a Bobcat in the area of agricultural use. I believe the records will show that Bobcat is a trade name. It's really a skid-steer. It's a unit that's produced by other manufacturers. I believe that the original design or idea came from a turkey producer, which gives us all the evidence we need to prove that it is, in fact, a piece of agricultural equipment, and ideally suited. What I'm recommending to the Minister of Finance, hopefully with the support of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is a complete update of that list.

Just to be a little humorous for a moment, the present list includes such things as hen specs. Hen specs go back many years to when breeders were kept in confinement and the dimmer switch hadn't been developed. Cannibalism used to take place so they used specs — not like yours; they were dark specs. Breeder chickens had to use those specs. That goes back many years. They're no longer necessary because of dimmer switches and all the environmental controls we have now, so that should come off the list.

Another item I can have a little fun with is the turkey saddle. There's some old stock around; maybe we could sell a few of them on the other side of the House. These were used before artificial breeding came in, to protect the hen from damage so that she would be a grade 1 product going to market later on.

I would like to see that list updated, Mr. Minister, and I'd, like to see it done quickly. To that I would also like to add that I hope that the people who have found themselves in this jackpot over this uncertainty as to whether this machine qualifies or not are taken care of. I certainly think it would be very unfair to anyone out there, whether he's a distributor or a user, to find himself faced with a hefty bill a long time after the purchase of the equipment. Proof of what it's being used for is right there.

I see we're running out of time. I'm sure someone else would like to speak, so I'm going to close now, for the moment. I want to talk a little bit about agricultural land. We'll be able to do that next week, or maybe the week after. How about next week? I think it's about time we set the record straight and tried to put a stop to the way the socialists use that particular program to further their own political needs.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll be quite brief, Mr. Chairman. But recognizing that we will be adjourning for a period of time, I wanted to just quickly respond for the record, so that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) will have the facts before him.

I mentioned the Woods Gordon management consultant's report for Spetifore Frozen Foods, dated September 6, 1977. It basically said: "The company would benefit substantially in terms of cash flow by the substitution of equity for debt and the attendant reduction of interest charges. This substitution can only be as a result of the sale of certain lands of the farming company, which act as security for the bank." I just point out for the member's benefit that that was the Woods Gordon consultant's report.

I would mention to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — and I apologize for not responding sooner — that I did have my staff pull a letter. A Peace River environmental association wrote me November 7, requesting me to attend a meeting. I wrote back on November 19, advising them that I was unable to accept an invitation to a meeting on December 9, 1980, as the House was sitting on that date.

One last item, with regard to the Wenger property in the Windermere area — a point that should be made for the record. The property in question — I think about 22 acres — has an active gravel pit adjacent to it. That property lacks irrigation and water, which is a major concern, of course; and lastly, it hasn't been farmed for over 20 years. The second member for Victoria talks about who dropped the ball and how it was dropped, and the fact that the Land Commission was responsible for the administration of the Soil Conservation Act and therefore could not allow the gravel pit to proceed because of the terms under the act and the restrictions thereto. It couldn't be brought back into agricultural production. It was the Environment and Land Use Committee who asked the Land Commission to look at conditions to ensure that that land remained in the ALR and the gravel pit could be developed, and after it was finished it could be recaptured for

[ Page 5135 ]

farm or agriculture use. The main point I want to make is that this minister — the minister who is attacked by the second member for Victoria — in 1977 brought into this House a bill called the Soil Conservation Act, at which time this minister placed the responsibility on the Agricultural Land Commission to deal with soil conservation. So the second member for Victoria, although he wasn't here in 1977, should recognize that this minister is concerned about agricultural land, its capability, and soil conservation, and that is one reason why we brought in the act that we did.

My final comment is that I appreciate the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) raising the issue of the Bobcat. I agree with him 100 percent, and of course I've made representation to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I'm hoping we will be able to update that list of exemptions for agricultural machinery and equipment and, you might say, bring it forward into the twentieth century.

With those few remarks, which I think answer all the questions raised today, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Wednesday, April 22, 1981, or such earlier time as it may appear to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time. In the event that Mr. Speaker is unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: During committee the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) quoted from a report by Woods, Gordon. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to file it with the House. I don't believe we've had access to a copy.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter that likely could be cared for between the two members, because the House is not aware of what happens in committee, except that which is reported by the Chairman. If indeed a document was read from and an undertaking was made for the filing, then I'm sure that would be carried out.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENTS TO ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to the Assessment Amendment Act, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in order that there be no misunderstanding, those are amendments to Bill 11. I move that the said message and amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 11.

Motion approved.

AMENDMENTS TO FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission for 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch for the year ending March 31, 1979.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding of the rules of the House that when anyone reads from a document, it is required that that document be filed. Now I know that the Speaker has no knowledge of what goes on in committee, but the minister quoted from a report and then moved the adjournment of the committee, so I had no time to ask that he file that report during committee. I would ask that the member now file that report with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may have a legitimate point and may have a very valid concern. However, it must be settled in committee, according to our rules, and the committee has been instructed to sit again. So I'm sure that that request would be available.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.