[ Page 5137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 5137

Sale of Crown land to Happy Valley Timber. Mr. Mitchell –– 5138

Mr. Lauk –– 5138

Sweeney Cooperage lease litigation. Mr. Barnes –– 5138

Health hazard at Alcan smelter. Mr. Howard –– 5138

Natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 5138

Racial discrimination. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 5139

Tabling Documents

Constitutional accord and Canadian patriation plan.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5140

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5140

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Ritchie

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Hall

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Dailly

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman special report number 1.

Mr. Speaker –– 5161

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are representatives of the National Farmers Union who met with some of the members of the Social Credit caucus and myself this morning. I'd like to introduce them to the House: Mr. Frank Breault, Wes Clarke, Vic Nobbs, Olive Nobbs, Jean Leahy, Ruth Veiner, Jordie Stanten, Peggy Stanten, Vernon Coombs, Stuart Thiessen and Jack McCloy. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my greetings to the members of the National Farmers Union who also met with our caucus, and wish them a good visit to Victoria.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I would like to introduce a welcome guest to the Legislature, the mayor of Surrey, Mayor Don Ross, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, partisan politics aside, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as Mr. Don Ross and I played football with the B.C. Lions many years ago.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor with us from Winnipeg, Manitoba. His name is Frank Metcalfe; he's an associate of Jim Hume. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are three loggers from that great north country. One of them is a former member of this House, Mr. Howard Lloyd, the former member for Fort George. Accompanying Howard this afternoon are Mr. Archie Strimbold from my great constituency of Omineca and Mr. Gerry Kirsky, another logger from the north. I would ask this House to make them all welcome.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the north country, in the gallery we have His Worship Derrick Humphrey from West Vancouver on the North Shore. I think few people realize that part of my constituency does extend into West Vancouver. I would ask the House to welcome His Worship.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is also hope in the gallery today. Would the House please welcome Frank Klassen, editor of the Hope Standard.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Mayor Don Ross has already been introduced, as has Mayor Derrick Humphrey. They're going to be joining, hopefully, the mayor of my home city of Kelowna, Mayor Dale Hammill, and Mr. Stewart Fleming, Kelowna city manager, and of course Chief J.J. Hornell, president of the B.C. Police Chiefs Association. I hope to have a meeting with them this afternoon. I ask the House to welcome them all.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today two citizens from my constituency. Both are members of the regional district of the area. One is also an alderperson. Wendy Quinn is an alderperson from Port Clements in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Betty Bitterlich is the regional director for area D on the Queen Charlottes. They're down here visiting myself and some ministers. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is working with me to try to bring, some autonomy to the Queen Charlotte Islands. We'll be meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) later this afternoon to do the same. I hope. I ask you to join with me in welcoming these two people to the Legislature today.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of saying to you today that one of the largest delegations ever to visit the Legislature is in the gallery: 168 students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School are in the gallery at the present time. They are under the direction of Mr. Archibald. Mrs. Robinson, Mr. Bondar, Mr. Bugler, Mr. Embree and Mr. Edmonds. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 8 states that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House. I've raised this question on several occasions. During question period, which is about to be called under standing orders, the opposition has many questions to ask of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is in charge of the administration of justice in this province. The question of the administration of justice.... Here he is now.

My point of order is that the service of the House begins at the ringing of the division bells at approximately 2 o'clock. All Crown ministers should be in their places to answer during question period. This is the only opportunity that members of the opposition have to question ministers. Through us the public learns information of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. hon. member. I'm sure that the member understands standing order 8, having raised it several times. I'm sure also that the member is not suggesting that the Speaker should summon members to the chamber. I believe that what we should do is continue the practice of the House: that is, that members should be in the House at 2 o'clock, and failing that, should at least be in the precincts of the House.

Oral Questions

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Some 300,000 acres, or nearly 30 percent, of the agricultural lands in the Peace River area are now owned by absentee foreigners. Can the Attorney-General advise whether he has decided to take action to prevent the foreign ownership of land in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that that is a question of policy, not an appropriate one for a question.

[ Page 5138 ]

MS. SANFORD: My question to the minister was: "Has he decided?" I'm not asking about future policy, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking whether at this moment he has decided whether or not to take action.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At this moment a decision has not been made.

MS. SANFORD: My next question is to the Minister of, Agriculture and Food. A year ago an undertaking was made by the minister to monitor the sale of B.C. agricultural land to absentee foreigners. Could the minister advise the House what the result of that monitoring is?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

SALE OF CROWN LAND
TO HAPPY VALLEY TIMBER

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General confirm that Crown land on which a juvenile correction camp is located is being offered for sale through secret negotiations and without public tender to Happy Valley Timber Ltd.?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I cannot confirm the matter raised by the hon. member. If he has particulars, I'd be happy to examine them and take the question as notice.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister confirm that BCBC is negotiating on behalf of the Attorney-General's department with the foreign-owned company, Happy Valley Timber Ltd., for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated?

MR. LAUK: Did the Provincial Secretary hear the question? I'll yield to the Provincial Secretary if he wishes to answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Would the member kindly repeat the question?

MR. MITCHELL: Can the minister confirm that BCBC is negotiating on behalf of the Attorney-General's department with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm that information, but I'd be happy to take the question as notice and provide further information.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the same minister. Is the minister aware of the name of such a company: Happy Valley Timber Ltd.? Does he know of such a company?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not familiar with the company, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that Happy Valley Timber Ltd. is a wholly foreign-owned corporation?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If he's not familiar with it during the course of these kinds of negotiations, he should resign as minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not hear a question.

The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is seeking the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: The question I was wanting to put to the Attorney-General again is: would he confirm that Happy Valley Timber is a foreign-owned company?

SWEENEY COOPERAGE LEASE LITIGATION

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. In a letter from B.C. Place to the solicitor for Sweeney Cooperage dated January 30, 1981, B.C. Place revealed confidential information from B.C. Development Corporation, a Crown corporation under your control. This information was obtained as a result of a loan application by Frank Sweeney to B.C. Development Corporation. Has the minister decided to investigate this serious breach of confidence by B.C. Development Corporation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second member for Vancouver Centre's question, I'll take the question on notice.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's candidness. I'm quite sure he's taken it as notice because he has not familiarized himself with the issue. I would suggest to him that this is not a new issue. It's an issue that has gone on for some time. This information I received was an affidavit which was made available quite recently in a trial. The minister is telling us that he'll take it as notice. Is the minister aware that there has been litigation taking place with respect to the expropriation of the lease which is held by Sweeney Cooperage Ltd. and owned by B.C. Place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member quit abusing the rules of question period and ask questions, not use it to make speeches. I'll take his question on notice.

HEALTH HAZARD AT ALCAN SMELTER

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Based upon the results of medical examinations with respect to the aluminum smelter at Kitimat, owned and operated by the Aluminum Co. of Canada, resulting in the disclosure that serious health hazards exist for the workers in that operation, I wonder if the minister has made a decision to investigate the Workers' Compensation Board's failure to pay attention to the deplorable health hazards that exist at the Alcan smelter in Kitimat.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't answer the question with any particularity at all. I'm aware of the inquiry and the study which was conducted, and it is my intention to follow it up with the WCB. I'm not really in a position to give a full answer to that question, but I will take it as notice if that will assist the member, because I intend to look into it.

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO
VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. With reference to the government's decision to give the green light to B.C. Hydro's proposal for a natural gas line to Vancouver Island over that of Westcoast Transmission, can the minister advise what the cost of service per thousand cubic feet of delivering gas to Vancouver Island under the B.C. Hydro proposal is?

[ Page 5139 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I take that question as notice. The cost of service for gas delivered on Vancouver Island would depend on a number of factors, not the least of which is the capital cost of the construction. There is also the number of customers to be served under either proposal, but it's primarily the capital cost. The capital cost of a new pipeline of some 350 kilometres through the very wild and environmentally sensitive country of the interior of this province as compared to a short, 39-kilometre pipeline in the southern part of the province would bear quite heavily on the cost of service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If the minister doesn't know the answer to that question, perhaps he can advise what the cost of service per thousand cubic feet of delivering gas to Vancouver Island under the Westcoast Transmission proposal is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: One can’t answer that question, because it carries too many variables with it to have one answer for the cost of service. The first and most important part of that concept would be how much gas would be carried; then how many customers would be served; what the capital cost of the service would be; whether or not the cost of service would be rolled in over the entire province so that gas purchasers in Vancouver, for instance — or in Fort St. John and other parts of the province — would be helping to pay for the cost of service of the gas to Vancouver Island. All of those things would be up to the Utilities Commission and would first of all require a ruling, for Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd., from the National Energy Board, and secondly, if it's B.C. Hydro, it would require a ruling on cost of service from the B.C. Utilities Commission. So that is not a question that can be answered without first of all knowing the answers for all of those other variables.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm surely amazed that this minister could give the go-ahead to one project over another without knowing the costs of either proposal. Is the minister aware then that the Westcoast proposal could and would deliver natural gas to Vancouver Island at $1.61 per thousand cubic feet cheaper than the B.C. Hydro proposal?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's the kind of propaganda which is being put forward, but it's an absolutely hysterical set of figures. There's no possible way that until all of those other questions are answered — including the capital cost, which for the northern line is more than double that for the southern route — those cost-of-service figures can be included. It would be irresponsible — and is irresponsible, as a matter of fact — for someone to attempt to establish those cost-of-service figures without knowing what the true costs are going to be. Those costs are established through the regulatory manners by which they've traditionally been established.

Again, I must remind the member that Westcoast has had no problems in increasing its cost of service to the provincial government through the National Energy Board. The B.C. Utilities Commission will be asked to decide those major questions about whether or not gas prices will be rolled in and whether or not there could be a different price for gas on Vancouver Island compared to the rest of the province. It will be those determinations which will decide the cost of service. The important factor, however, is that we're looking at two proposals, one of which carries with it extreme environmental considerations. It carries with it the possibility of crossing seven rivers, some of them two and three times. It carries with it twice as much capital cost. It carries with it far too many uncertainties. The work which has been done by British Columbia Hydro is approximately one year ahead of the work that has been done by Westcoast Transmission.

Once more I repeat that anyone who would attempt to usurp the function of the Utilities Commission or the National Energy Board and pull in....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I remind the members that the function of the Utilities Commission is as a regulatory body. It's absolutely irresponsible to consider that those figures could be established without knowing the facts of how those kinds of questions will be answered. In the long run, it will depend on the recommendations that the government will get from the B.C. Utilities Commission about the way in which cost-of-service figures will be established. Those questions cannot be answered at this time.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) asked a question which I took as notice. The question alleged that I or the assistant deputy minister, Stephen Stackhouse, had somehow interfered with the authority of the human rights director in the Chandrama Mishra complaint involving the Vancouver Community College. In reply to the question, I would like to state that at no time have I or any other official of the ministry interfered or intervened in any investigation being conducted by the human rights branch.

Mr. Mishra filed a complaint with the branch in June 1980, alleging that because of his colour and place of origin, he had been discriminated against by the nursing faculty of Vancouver Community College. An investigation was commenced by the human right officer with the branch. On September 26, 1980, the branch contacted Stephen Stackhouse, who was at that time a legal officer with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, seconded to the Ministry of Labour. The branch requested Mr. Stackhouse to deal directly with Vancouver Community Collee's solicitor for the purpose of enabling the investigating officer to obtain certain evidence. As a result of his involvement as solicitor for the human rights branch, the obstacles to the investigation were removed, and the investigation continued in accordance with the normal investigatory procedure of the human rights branch.

During the latter part of February 1981, an apparent misunderstanding arose as to the further conduct of the investigation. Again, at the request of the branch, Mr. Stackhouse provided legal assistance. On March 10, 1981, Nola Landucci, who is the director of the branch, instructed him to advise the solicitor for Vancouver Community College that the branch would release particulars of the allegations to the college's solicitor and then conduct interviews with certain instructors of the college. This satisfactorily resolved the apparent misunderstanding.

On March 17, a meeting took place with the complainant, his solicitor, and Ms. Landucci. Given the context of the

[ Page 5140 ]

position taken by the director on March 10, and the concerns expressed by the complainant in the March 17 meeting, it was Mr. Stackhouse's legal advice — I repeat, his legal advice, and not his instruction, as alleged — that a meeting between the solicitor for Vancouver Community College and the director of the human rights branch would be appropriate. The director of the branch accepted this advice and met with the respondant's solicitor on March 27, 1981. As anticipated, the meeting was productive, and the investigation is now continuing, pursuant to the conditions established by the branch on March 10.

I might say that human rights officers perform a difficult job in conducting investigations of complaints made under the Human Rights Code. Those investigations which they conduct are thorough, and adhere to the legal requirements of the fair process. There are no restrictions placed on the officers during an investigation. If the evidence is relevant, then the full authority of the code is used to gain access to that evidence.

It has taken some time. There are massive amounts of documents to be studied, and there are a large number of people to be interviewed. I hope that satisfactorily answers the question which the member raised at this point in time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the constitutional accord and the Canadian patriation plan that were signed in Ottawa last Thursday, April 16, by eight Premiers representing eight governments, in our country.

MR. LAUK: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to request leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. LAUK: Under the School Act, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) sets the mill rate for provincial school property taxes on April 16, or April 20, I think. Today is the first opportunity that this assembly has to deal with the shattering announcement of Monday, this week, that the property tax mill rate will be increased.

On December 1, 1980, the Ministry of Education issued a news release projecting the 1981 basic levy at 41.2 mills. This projected rate is formidable enough, considering the extraordinary increases in assessed property values throughout the province, let alone the announcement made Monday. These increases in assessed property values in no way indicate, as the minister knows, increased ability to pay on the part of taxpayers. In fact, rising costs, together with these assessment increases, make it very difficult for homeowners to come up with the tax increases.

We in the opposition, and school trustees across the province, after the minister's announcement on Monday, are of the view that this government is attacking the basis of homeownership in the province. It is now increasingly evident that the Social Credit government has been intent on bleeding homeowners through this indirect taxation. The use of market-value assessments, followed by an increase in the mill rate, is a one-two punch which homeowners are having great difficulty withstanding. The situation is extremely urgent, in view of the fact that the end of this month is the date on which school districts must finalize their budgets. In the present situation, some school districts, particularly those in the lower mainland, are considering precipitous action. School trustees are not prepared to take the rap for another Social Credit tax increase which is not revealed in the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think we have the statement of the matter. We are now beginning to debate the merits of the matter.

MR. LAUK: The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many cases in the province of school tax bills doubling to homeowners, before the announcement. This situation is unacceptable. It is a reflection of an underhanded policy. My colleagues and I take great exception to it.

Therefore I request leave to move the following motion: Be it resolved that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating massive, unwarranted increases in school property taxes, the decline in provincial support for education, and the serious effect of these developments on homeowners throughout British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will reserve decision without prejudice to the hon. member and, in so doing, remind all hon. members that in presenting matters of urgent public importance under standing order 35, it is important that we clearly state the matter and not go into the merits or debate the issues, or enter into the argument of the case itself. I will bring a decision to the House as quickly as I can.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I elaborated to the extent I did is that, I think you'll find, in my statement I covered most of the points that Mr. Speaker usually raises in Mr. Speaker's decisions on such motions under standing order 35: urgency and the subject matter itself.

But I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you would deal with the matter after a short recess. The reason I'm asking this is that elected school trustees in this province are considering action that requires the immediate attention of the government and this Legislature. I respectfully request that the Chair recess, consider the matter and bring in a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think what I'll do is follow the normal procedure — in an instance in which I like to give the matter further consideration rather than just to consider its urgency out of hand. I would like to consider this one a little longer. Therefore I reserve decision. I believe that we should not interrupt the business of the House but that the business should proceed, and then we can return to this matter as quickly as possible.

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.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned about a week and a half ago, we were discussing one of the minister's responsibilities relative to the Land Commission

[ Page 5141 ]

and agricultural land. During the course of my remarks on the last day we sat I dealt with the situation that had occurred in the Fraser Valley with the so-called Buckerfield Farm, where dealing and changing hands on that particular piece of valuable farm property had driven the price from $5,000 per acre up to in excess of $10,000 — more than double in a matter of two or three months. I think that that is an example of the kind of thing that has been happening and that has made it very difficult for farmers to operate in the province of British Columbia.

The Financial Times, in their March 23 edition of this year, ran an article which dealt with farmland — "On the Fast Track" was its title — and they estimated that the average appreciation of agricultural land across Canada was 17.5 percent. I think it's obvious that here in British Columbia the rate is much higher, because in many other areas we have some kind of legislation that controls and protects farmland relative to ownership, particularly relative to people who are absentee owners living outside the province. Saskatchewan had legislation passed in 1980 forbidding anyone Outside the province to own more than ten acres of land: Quebec did the same thing in 1979. Before that, Manitoba all but closed off purchases by non-Canadians, and earlier still. Prince Edward Island moved to protect its land.

Yet here in British Columbia we have no legislation to make that kind of move to protect agricultural land for agricultural use. Instead, it's being allowed to fall into the hands of developers in small parcels, as was the case with the Buckerfield Farm — down as low as 3.4 acres — to remove the viability of that farmland and put further pressure on the rural setting by mixing urbanization in with the agricultural area. In Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact, they moved first in April 1974. They brought in the Saskatchewan Farm Ownership Act, which restricted non-resident individuals to a maximum of $15,000 in assessed value. Non-agricultural corporations were also limited. But even in the face of that piece of legislation, in Saskatchewan they still found that there was a continuing erosion and price increase of agricultural land. It was still being bought up by non-residents from under the feet of the would-be agricultural people. In the constituency of Last Mountain–Touchwood, which is the richest farming land in the constituency, 34 acres were bought up by what became known as "German interests." That was done in the face of the fact that they had the legislation they had. It wasn't until last year that they moved in and made a more binding and stronger piece of legislation. The prices there sound very cheap to us here in B.C., but $400 an acre for farmland in Saskatchewan was very unrealistic to the people who were having to buy that land. Those provinces have taken moves to protect the agricultural interests by trying to control the foreign ownership.

What we have here is a minister of the Crown saying that there is no problem. It's interesting to note that he comes up with a fraction of 1 percent — or something like that — foreign ownership. It seems to me that the only way that he could arrive at such a figure would be to simply take owners as they're listed on the titles, regardless of, the acreage or number of hectares that particular owner happens to purchase. When you think of comparing a city lot to a parcel of land of 3,000 or 4,000 acres, you are certainly looking at two entirely different things. It seems to me that this is the only way this minister could have arrived at that kind of a figure. I have it on fairly good authority that the figure of 30 percent that has been fairly well substantiated in the Peace River area in the northern part of the province is probably quite accurate right across the province. To hide behind the figure of 1 percent foreign ownership is simply avoiding the problem. The Minister of Agriculture and Food continues to tell us that he's committed to the preservation of agricultural land. In fact, I heard him speak. I think it was in the interior somewhere, and he told us he was going to etch the reserve in stone and served notice that that was going to happen. Shortly after that the Vancouver Sun did an editorial which I think is worth reading into the record. It's dated March 14, 1981.

"It wasn't so many weeks ago that Agriculture minister Jim Hewitt was saying that the time is fairly close when no more areas in Richmond and Delta will be allowed out of the agricultural land reserve. He was no more specific than that. It was a vague statement rather than a commitment — a reflection more than anything else of widespread public concern about the ease with which the cabinet had released Spetifore's 523 acres in south Delta for housing, and the pressure building up for similar exclusions elsewhere.

"Anyone looking for reassurance that the cabinet had resolved that enough was enough, and that it would no longer play politics with agricultural land or the land commissioners whose expert judgment should be the last word in preservation of a rapidly diminishing resource, did not get it from Mr. Hewitt. Nor, we are obliged to say, do they seem likely to get it from any other member of a cabinet that since 1977 has accelerated and presided over the removal of more and more land from the province's agricultural land reserve."

The editorial goes on. It winds up by saying that what we desperately need "is a cohesive land-use policy — something that not only will make sense to people but may in truth be the only insurance we have of being able to feed ourselves in future." Of course the body of the article deals with the continuing conflict between the various ministries — Forests, Housing, and supposedly Agriculture, although we never bear anything about Agriculture being in there to protect the farmers' interests.

It's interesting to note, what happened in Prince George when the sitting member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) indicated that agriculture should not even be considered in that area. I'm sorry that that member is not in the House at this particular point in time. He was attacked in the Prince George Citizen for the stand he took: "Statements by MLA Anger Area Farmers." "Local farmers say Prince George South MLA Bruce Strachan has put his foot firmly in the manure by saying he didn't believe farming is a viable industry in that area." They went so far as to lobby that particular member and presented him with a great many reasons why agriculture should and could be viable in the Prince George area. But I think that member's attitude is an example of the attitude of the members on that side of the House relative to the preservation of agricultural land. It's a very low priority with those people.

I think that's also true when it comes to the situation with the Site C dam. I spoke briefly about this earlier, and the minister responded by saying that he had replied. True, he replied to the invitation, saying he couldn't come to the meeting being held to air, hopefully, both sides of the question. What he did not do, according to'the members of the Peace River environmental society, was respond to their second request which asked him, inasmuch as he was not able

[ Page 5142 ]

to be present, to send a prepared statement which could be read into the record. That statement was not in evidence at the meeting which I referred to earlier.

I referred briefly to the minister's approach towards the whole Site C project. According to the press, he is not prepared to take a stand in opposition to the Site C dam going in. In fact, all he is prepared to do is somehow try to evaluate or equate the worth of agricultural land in dollars and cents: to replace agricultural land with dollars. Agricultural land is not replaceable with dollars. Dollars will not produce food, provide a base for our agricultural industry or support the infrastructure to make a viable and continuing industry.

I have in my hand — it's undated, unfortunately, but it's some 19 pages — the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture approach to the B.C. Hydro Site C reservoir project. It says a lot of great things about agriculture. It says that it's possible to distinguish two sources of social value which will be forgone when agricultural land in the Site C reservoir is lost to flooding. It goes on to say that "the value of production-cost savings to the consumers in the region...." It's admitting that there would be a saving to consumers in the Peace River, but they're going to replace that with dollars. It says:

"A substantial growth of population is expected in the region, principally in the towns of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. Projections indicate that population will more than double over the next decade, with large-scale development of coal deposits. Such increases in population, coupled with a predictable sharp rise in fuel costs, should create powerful incentives for an increasing production locally. The loss to consumers arising from the loss of agricultural land to the reservoir is a loss associated with land as an input in local food production."

Yet he's not prepared to fight for that agricultural land; he's going to trade it off for an estimated $70 million, half of which will go into government projects and half of which will go in the forms of loans to local producers, to somehow compensate for the loss of land and somehow make land available in other areas, in Fort Nelson perhaps — put in some kind of transportation system. But how do you compensate for the land in Fort Nelson? As Hugh Shelford put it, very aptly, they keep on making people, but they're not making any more land. No dollars and cents that you take in return for destruction of agricultural land are going to compensate for that land. Yet we have a minister supposedly charged with the responsibility of speaking out for the agricultural community — now also speaking out for food and the food needs of this province — who is prepared to sit quietly by while perhaps his first love, energy, takes precedence over his interest in agriculture. He lets the Site C Dam go ahead with no move to protect that agricultural land. In spite of loud concerns expressed not just by the politicians on this side of the House, but by those very agricultural people whom he's supposed to represent, by the organized agricultural bodies in this province and by individual after individual, he sits and takes no action, Mr. Chairman. I'm extremely concerned about that. I'm concerned about his entire attitude towards the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.

Quite frequently I have had the occasion recently to discuss certain matters with Dr. Friedmann, the ombudsman, particularly in relation to a problem in my own constituency, where the minister's handling of raw milk sales is being investigated. I will deal with that one at greater length when we're dealing with that type of agricultural enterprise. I noticed a column in the newspaper on country life where there was mention that the ombudsman was also investigating the Ministry of Agriculture relative to the Agricultural Land Commission. In my discussions with Dr. Friedmann, I asked him whether or not it would be possible to make any of that correspondence available to me. Certainly I can understand that when an individual is being investigated, that's a private matter. But when a ministry is being investigated for, perhaps, interference in a public body, in a commission, then surely that should be public information. The ombudsman was inclined to agree with me.

It's my understanding that the Agricultural Land Commission Act makes that Agricultural Land Commission autonomous. It should not be beholden to the Minister of Agriculture for any of its administrative policies; neither should it really be beholden for its dollars and cents, Mr. Chairman. It would be much more effective if, in fact, it submitted its budget as a separate entity rather than part of the Agriculture minister's budget. That would then make the commission much more autonomous. I think that the minister would perhaps agree with me that that act is very explicit. It does indicate that the Land Commission is, and should be, completely autonomous. I'm concerned when I find that we're in a situation where the ombudsman has been called in to review whether or not the Land Commission is autonomous. I would like the minister's assurance today that he considers the Land Commission an autonomous body and is not interfering in any way with its day-to-day operation, either administratively or from a policy point of view. If the minister is prepared to give me that assurance, I would be happy to take my place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat made some comment regarding a cohesive agricultural land reserve policy. I guess we could stand here all day and debate the issue as to whether or not this government does or does not have that type of policy. The only thing I can say to the member, which she is fully aware of, is that in my budget under the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission between the 1980-81 fiscal year and the 1981-82 fiscal year, we've moved from $1.1 million up to $1.6 million — a 50 percent increase. The reason for that — and the member knows this full well — is to carry out further review, investigation, fine tuning, better analysis, on-site inspection — whatever you want to call it — of agricultural land in this province. That's the reason for that additional expenditure. We will attempt to better identify agricultural land and the preservation of agricultural land for future food production.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, every time you talk about land in the reserve, it's "etched in concrete" as far as the opposition is concerned. It is an emotional and political issue. Regardless of whether or not it's non-agricultural land or agricultural land, when an exclusion comes out there's a great hue and cry. I'm just saying that this ministry and the Land Commission for which I'm responsible is attempting to property identify the agricultural land reserves and the preservation of that good agricultural land in this province. As the member for Cowichan-Malahat knows, in the first instance the Canada Land Inventory designations were used. In many cases non-agricultural land was included in the agricultural land reserve, and in some cases agricultural land was not included in the reserve. As a result, we have to carry out this

[ Page 5143 ]

further investigation. We are providing the dollars to do it. I make the point that we do have a cohesive agricultural land reserve policy, and we have put the dollars up front to support that policy.

In regard to Site C and the development of the Site C dam, I agree with the member that agricultural land is not replaceable and that the decision in regard to the preservation of that land has to be determined by what is in the public good. That determination will be made by the Utilities Commission in their hearings. First, is the power needed in this province? Secondly, if the energy is needed, what alternatives are we faced with? The question has to be addressed as to what the alternatives are. Is it hydroelectric power, which means the damming of rivers and the flooding of valley bottoms, which impact on agricultural land? As we all know, hydroelectric power is a renewable resource and a non-polluting resource. Is it a matter of burning coal? That's a possibility and an alternative, but in my opinion it has two things against it. One, it's a limited resource. Mind you, we have a lot of it, but you are using up a non-renewable resource. Secondly, it does have some pollution problems. If you're looking at burning natural gas or burning oil, you're taking one form of energy and converting it into another form of energy. I'm not sure that that's practical. Or you can look at nuclear power. I'm sure we're all aware in this House as to what the public feeling is with regard to nuclear power in the province of British Columbia.

So in the end, Madam Member, as Minister of Agriculture I have to first of all take the stance that I would like to see agricultural land preserved. As a member of government and having also to recognize what is in "the public good," I have to recognize that maybe when you analyze it, the best alternative in the public good of this province might well be the flooding of Site C. That is not for me to determine at this time. But if it is the case that Site C were to go ahead, then in my opinion there has to be some form of compensation. Whether it be in dollars or otherwise, there has to be some form of compensation to the agricultural industry of this province. That I will fight for if it's the case.

Those are two questions I've responded to. On the third question, I'm not just sure what the member for Cowichan-Malahat was attempting to ask. It seemed to me that we were talking about an ombudsman's involvement with the Land Commission and the hiring of staff. The Land Commission is an autonomous body. It's appointed by me, as Minister of Agriculture, and it is responsible to me. Having that responsibility, as the member knows, I also have advisers. My deputy minister, senior staff and others advise me on many issues related to agriculture and to my responsibilities with regard to the Land Commission. That is the involvement of my staff. That commission is responsible to me, and I, of course, am responsible to this House with regard to any actions taken. The member may wish to pursue that issue. I'm not exactly sure in what form she wanted me to respond. The Land Commission is responsible to me. They are an autonomous body, setup with a chairman, six commissioners and a staff.

MRS. WALLACE: I was talking about the administrative and policy decisions of the Land Commission remaining completely autonomous, not to any specific decisions of any kind. I would like the assurance that the minister has no intention of changing that arrangement. Would he consider the possibility, in order to make that body completely autonomous, of allowing them to do their own budgeting and present it in a slightly different way, similar to other Crown corporations or commissions directly through the Minister of Finance or whatever?

In response to his first remarks relative to alternatives, he talked about some alternatives but he didn't look at other alternatives for energy. I'm wondering whether the minister is indicating in his remarks to this House that he is opposed to the Hat Creek coal development. He indicated that it has various side effects. I know that a great many of the ranchers are very concerned about that. I'm wondering whether or not, if he's not going to take a stand on Site C, he's going to take a stand on Hat Creek.

Mr. Minister, you say you re going to wait and let the Utilities Commission decide. The Utilities Commission decides on the basis of the input to those hearings. If the Ministry of Agriculture were to make a presentation, then perhaps that Utilities Commission would have a broader base on which to work. Does that Utilities Commission really make the decision, or is that decision really made in cabinet? I know that's not that minister's responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, back to the Land Commission. It is an autonomous body, but it is responsible to me. In setting up their costs of operation for the year, they prepare and present their budget to Treasury Board. The Treasury Board deals with their submission the same as it deals with other commissions and ministries of the government.

With regard to the Utilities Commission, the member will be interested to know that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be making a submission to the hearings of the Utilities Commission. In those submissions we make, we will be setting our case as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the Utilities Commission.

With regard to Hat Creek coal, I was making a comparison to the member. When you look at hydroelectric power — many countries look at our abundance of hydroelectric power with envy, I can safely say — it is renewable and it is nonpolluting, as opposed to burning coal, which, as I said to the member, does have some problems. You may have to spend a considerable amount of money to ensure that you don't pollute the atmosphere if you're burning coal for energy.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mounts her white charger, as many others on the opposition benches do. With lances at the ready, they come charging down on the government. If they dare mention even one word about agricultural land or talk about land in any way, it's a no-no. Agricultural land is a sacred.... Shall I use the word "cow"? It's probably not appropriate, but it is a sacred substance that you do not talk about.

I believe that this province and country must come to grips.... Agricultural land in itself doesn't produce a thing. It's the men and women willing to work the land who can produce and do produce. It's an anomaly to me that North Dakota, South Dakota and part of Iowa can produce more wheat than all of Canada. It seems to me that it's not only land, but it's the will to produce and the markets to sell it in that count.

I must say today that I'm amazed at the arguments we hear. We speak prayerfully of agricultural land, and certainly we should. But I think we must speak of what is agricultural

[ Page 5144 ]

land, and land that will produce. There is so much land in the province of British Columbia that was thrown into the agricultural land reserve without consideration and without knowledge of its productive value, simply by taking the federal land inventory that was not yet then complete and, willy-nilly, without consideration, throwing it on the province of British Columbia, saying that forever that shall be the agricultural land of this province. It was not complete, it was not considered, and in most cases it was incorrect. The federal government will be the first to say that it was just a temporary and an originating concept. The NDP government of that day were in such a rush to put this thing in and to take the credit for something that would complicate the future that it was put in without consideration. An hon. member of that same party, the minister, I think it was, of resources, Mr. Bob Williams, said at that time that he guaranteed: "I will make such an omelette that no one can unscramble it." He did make such an omelette. He made one with ICBC. He made one with the agricultural land reserve. That is a total mess. We, as government, must live with it.

I'm getting sick and tired of that opposition sanctimoniously crying about agricultural land. We know about agricultural land. We preserve agricultural land. We want agriculture to succeed. That minister is now, through his efforts, trying to upgrade the agricultural markets in British Columbia — to make markets to sell our products. Forty-five percent of the food we eat is produced in British Columbia. They're trying to raise that.

We must remember that all our food is not from land. Chickens do not need one square foot of land.

MRS. WALLACE: What do they eat?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Lettuce, which we'll soon be growing without land.

Yet we need agriculture. You hear the cries over there — "oh!" Let me tell you this: we have enough agricultural land in British Columbia in the reserve to feed not only this country but the entire continent of North America. We have land in the north country alone to feed all of North America if we had to be depended on for food. That's a well-known fact. The studies are there and established.

This opposition wants to bring across the idea that every speck of land is of such ultimate value that it cannot be touched or considered. Land for homes of the public of this country is every bit as important. We need land for people to live on. They can't live in the air; they've got to live in homes. The reason that our people cannot buy land and the land has got so expensive is that so much of it has been frozen willy-nilly — 2 and 3 acres in Maple Ridge and Delta, 5 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres inconsiderately frozen that have no place in the agricultural scheme. What has happened to this land? It's been frozen for agriculture. It can never be for agriculture — impossible. Yet when that minister tries to fine-tune it, the cry goes out: "You're taking away our breakfast." It's total nonsense. It is time that our government and our minister took the bull by the horns and said: "We will fine-tune. Let us do the right thing. Let us get this land that has no earthly use for agriculture out of the reserve. Let us put land in the reserve that can be useful for agriculture." I can tell you about hundreds of thousands of acres in the country north of here that is agricultural land and has never been considered that should and must be put in the reserve in due course. Let's put that in. Let's take the one in the lower mainland out. Let's make places for people to live. Let us make places for homes.

This opposition cries about young people not being able to afford homes. Of course they cannot afford homes when we have ordinary houses and flats selling for $150,000. That's got to be ridiculous. What is the cost — not only the cost of labour and products, but the cost of lots? In the municipality of Maple Ridge a year ago a lot was available for $20,000. Today that same lot is $65,000. Why is that? Because there is too much land frozen within the municipality that should be released for public housing. If enough land was released within that municipality, prices of that land would and should go down. The same thing applies to every municipality in the lower mainland. I'm telling you of the ridiculous nature....

MRS. WALLACE: There's enough housing land in Dewdney until the year 2020.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not talking about developers; I'm talking about homes for people. I'm saying to you that you have a good tune to play. This tune is: "Don't touch our agricultural land." It certainly is a good tune. It's a popular tune, but it's not an honest tune. Honesty says that you must release land in the areas where it can be used for public housing and open up land that can be used for agriculture. That should be the duty of this government. I say to you that the time has passed to pussy-foot around this issue. Let us take a grip on the thing; let's do something.

I'll give you an example. In Pitt Meadows there's a man and I should not mention his name, because I do not have his permission — who lives exactly at the east end of the Pitt River bridge. He has five acres of land there. That man wants to take that five acres and make a farmers' market at his own expense so that farmers can sell their produce there and be open to the markets of the metropolitan area and the surrounding markets. It's at a central point — an excellent point — right at the two Pitt River bridges. He has pleaded with the Agricultural Land Commission to release his land — no way. He cannot grow anything on that land. It's not viable for agriculture. It's too small to produce anything worthwhile, but yet — and I plead his case — if he was allowed to gamble with $150,000, $200,000 or $300,000 to risk his money to build the necessary consortium to make such a project viable, it would require that the land be taken out of the reserve so that small operators in the area in Delta, Burnaby, Mission, and Surrey — the parents and children of the farms — could grow small articles and sell them on that land in that farmers' market. But no, the sanctimonious.... I shouldn't use the word; no, I won't use it. But no, the answer is given that it cannot be taken from the agricultural land reserve.

So what have we got? The municipalities are tied up with little bits of land of two, three and five acres that can never be farms. Yet the best agricultural land in the province was taken out by that opposition when they were government — Tilbury Island, the Wong farm. Name them? I can name a dozen. They were taking them out helter-skelter. Why did they take them out? I'm not criticizing them for removing them; I'm criticizing them for throwing the land reserve up so fast and then finding they had made such a grave mistake trying to fix it up. Now we call it fine-tuning.

I say to the government that it's too late to monkey with this any more. Get down to business. Let's open up the land for the public of British Columbia; let's make land for people to live on. Let's reduce the price of land. Let's put 50,000 lots on the market in the lower mainland. We could do that

[ Page 5145 ]

without hurting a single farm. If we did that, people could buy homes, and it's up to us to see that it's done. Let us face the issue. I compliment the minister on his effort and what he is doing to raise farmers' production in British Columbia — real farmers, farmers with land, with 50 or 100 acres. Don't expect people with five and ten acres to be farmers: that is ridiculous, out of the question. It can be in a small way, but our hope in the future is to make farms viable, and I hope that the minister sees his responsibility and takes this action. Today we need 50,000 pieces of new property in the lower mainland to make it possible to reduce the price of land, so that people can own their own homes. This does not interfere with agriculture; agriculture will be better than ever.

We have more than ample land everywhere. The foothills. The finest land in British Columbia is on the southern slopes of our hills — great agricultural land which is never mentioned for agriculture. Why is it not agriculture? Most of it is better than the low land; yet we put this agricultural land reserve.... It must be fine-tuned.

My goodness, I want to tell you today that the agricultural land reserve was slapped on in such a hurry, with so much haste, and we're paying the price today for what was done then. I only wish that reason had prevailed, that the omelette was not so hard to unscramble. I remember in a previous government, when it was called the Greenbelt Act — a marvellous idea, great stretches of land being sold by a willing seller to the government, which was a willing buyer. Parts of British Columbia were being made available, all this land was made partially available to produce and will always be in the public domain. Municipalities were required to specify their regions for housing, agriculture, business or whatever. Pitt Meadows was the only municipality that accomplished this procedure, and they laid out the whole municipality as agriculture, business and homes, and it's never been changed. That's the way it was being done by a previous government: properly, slowly and in an orderly fashion. But today what have we got? An agricultural land reserve that was put on without consideration. And we have these people riding on their white chargers and saying: "Don't touch it." Well, I just say to you, Mr. Chairman, it must be touched, it must be adjusted, because it's no longer proper to have a thing put on in this disorder and expect it to stand forever untouched.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I was first elected to this Legislature in 1969, at the same time as that member who just spoke. I could hardly call him a colleague after that speech. It's a speech very much like a speech I'd expect to hear from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) or one of the other uninformed members of the House.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: One doesn't have to be an agricultural expert to know when one is being had, and that's what is happening to the public of British Columbia right now with this government, and it would be even worse with the advice of that member. You know, that member talks about five- and ten-acre pieces of land being taken out of the agricultural land reserves. He forgets about Gloucester; he forgets about all the large pieces that have been taken out, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much farmland do you have in New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: We have some farmland in New Westminster. The minister of municipalities hasn't managed to get rid of our truck gardens down there yet, but he'll try. He'll try to work out a way. He got rid of ICBC headquarters, and he'll do his best.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, let me put the record straight. The member for Dewdney, who incidentally wasn't in the House at the time — thankfully, as the people of Dewdney were spared his presence in this House for three and a half years — was talking about how Bob Williams said that he'd be making such an omelette that people could never unscramble it. The fact of the matter is that the minister in charge of the agricultural land reserve was the Minister of Agriculture, who at that time was the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and still is the member for Nanaimo. It was a cabinet decision, which we all make, which included the Minister of Forests at the time, which included all the other ministers, including the Premier. Why was there a decision made in haste in terms of freezing the land? It was utterly and absolutely necessary. Both the Minister of Agriculture at the time and others came to us and said that if we either put forward a White Paper or brought an act to the Legislature, by the time that was proclaimed and you got around to actually locating the agricultural land, the very good quality land that the developers wanted could have been swallowed up. Therefore, there was a freeze. Then came the legislation. What did the legislation do? It declared certain classes of agricultural land in this province to be inviolate. However, it was to be fine-tuned with the cooperation of the regional districts in all areas of the province. Some of the regional districts did not cooperate; some took their time.

Others very quickly answered and indicated the areas they felt should be taken out by virtue of development that had taken place so they didn't any longer lend themselves to agricultural land use and indicated other pieces of land that should be included.

I would agree with the member for Dewdney in the suggestion that this is a very large province. However, his intimation that we may be able to even sustain ourselves, let alone feed all of North America with British Columbia land, has got to be the most inane statement I’ve ever heard. Here is a province where we import from California more of what we eat in our own homes than we grow ourselves, and that member is telling us we can sustain ourselves off our own land and, not only that, feed all of North America. What a nonsensical. utterly irresponsible statement for him to make. If your children and my grandchildren have to rely on decisions coming out of minds like that with absolutely no information, I suggest to you we are in jeopardy

I've suggested what happened. I've suggested we took a tremendous beating. Even at that, this government does not dare — other than in this piecemeal way they're doing it now — cancel out agricultural land reserves. The reason they can't is because they know the public would have them out of office the very next day. It is absolutely a requirement that a government have a commitment. What have we seen today? A government totally without commitment and which couldn't care less.

Earlier today the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about the whole question of foreign ownership of our land, and what did she get for a reply? "I'll take it as notice," "No," or waffle all over the place.

The only worse speech I've heard so far this year is the one I'm going to deal with in a few moments. The member

[ Page 5146 ]

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).... Well, it was so bad that one should not reply to it at all, but there are certain things he said about which I think the record should be straightened out.

I just want to suggest that I happened to be here, as that member was, when the greenbelt legislation came forward from the old Socred government in 1970-71. As the member so aptly said, Pitt Meadows put their land together. I don't know of any other municipality, city, district or anything else that managed to put anything of significance together out of that greenbelt legislation. What did it do? It did not do what was necessary to conserve agricultural land. Again, the member talks about the ease of development of the valley bottoms. We all know that, but he also goes on to tell us that there's lots of good farmland on the sidehills. Running a tractor up and down sidehills isn't exactly the greatest of fun. That's where we should be developing our housing. It's a little more expensive, but we must go to those sidehills if we are to provide our future generations with food in this land. Someday California's going to send a message and they're going to say: "We've got a lot a mouths to feed ourselves; no longer can we feed yours." If we're not ready — if we do not have land available at that time, we have done a terrible disservice to those generations to come. Speeches made in this House — specious arguments like that — do not do anything to protect the heritage. Then the member made this final plea for the five acres to be taken out of Pitt Meadows so somebody can build a truck garden. Maybe there's some good in that request, maybe not. I'd hate to see a Chevrolet dealership on that five acres tomorrow. It could possibly happen, because it strikes me that we've seen that happen before.

Mr. Chairman, who is for the Agricultural Land Commission? I remember back in 1973-74 when the fight was on. Everybody was running for cover. The Socreds were having a heyday: "The NDP is going to take away your land; they're going to do this and they're going to do that." And the threats: the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) made a major effort to tell everybody that we would not only take away their land, we'd take away their watches, jewellery and rings. Such utter claptrap nonsense! It was to be expected from Socreds, but at the same time it worried some people. It worried people like a rather conservative group called the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. However, it didn't take that group long to come to their senses. What are they saying now in their proposals to government? What are they saying now in their briefs to MLAs of this province? They're saying the following: "The BCFA's commitment to the agricultural land reserve remains unchanged. Our opposition to the present appeal process is well known...." We know where that appeal process came from: the present government. I go on to quote:

"...and has been underscored by the negative exposure and commentary surrounding the recent ELUC decisions on exclusions. The agricultural community will continue to monitor developments in this area and express our concerns over the integrity of the Land Commission process to the government and public."

Mr. Chairman, that's what they say. As a former Minister of Health, I sat on the Environment and Land Use Committee. That committee even had some work to do in the previous Socred government, and then we gave it lots to do. We enhanced that committee by putting forward a secretariat. That secretariat was to give advice to the committee. In keeping with this stupid land policy of theirs, this government has divided and conquered just like the old Socreds used to do. They have taken the secretariat and dissolved it. Part of the secretariat is here under one minister, part is under another minister, and part is under still another minister. They can't get their act together.

I can remember ministries in government when it was hard to get two bureaucrats together within a ministry, let alone trying to put bureaucrats together who are divided in ministries with empire-building going on, etc. It was only done because of this government's lack of commitment to agricultural land and preserving that agricultural land. That's why it was done. Now they've got these groups who are powerless — not that the secretariat was politically powerful, but the secretariat was powerful in this respect: their advice went to the entire Environment and Land Use Committee. I think it's an absolute shame. Shame on this government! Down they're going to go — thankfully — with all of their stupid policies. The sooner the better, Mr. Chairman, for these kinds of unreasonable things that have occurred in the past five and a half years.

I noted today in reading a brief from the National Farmers Union similar statements and a similar commitment to agricultural land being kept for agricultural purposes. Yet we hear this drivel. We hear this business: "Oh, well, that land is gravel — no good for agricultural land." Well, we heard something about gravel the other day, didn't we? I think it was some land dubbed the Wenger proposition. The Wenger proposition was one where the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and his former constituency representative in Columbia River and her husband, I gather, made a proposal to take over some land covered in the reserve. Why did they want the land? Because under the land was some very good gravel. You can make a statement that that land was not fit for agricultural purposes. The fact of the matter is that the land on top of the gravel was very much fit for agricultural purposes, according to our information.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However, when you take two things away from an agricultural land commission — firstly, the advice they can get through the secretary and, secondly, their right to make decisions and give the cabinet the final decision — then politics can very easily enter in. A powerful minister can go to his colleagues and say: "Look, I've got a friend, and I owe him or her a favour." Before you know it, these kinds of things happen. I don't understand the psychology of this government. I understand that they're incompetent. It strikes me that there could be no government ever foisted upon a group of people such as the 2.5 million people we have in this province that could have given a worse account of themselves.

Even at that, you'd think they'd have enough brains and sense to see to it that our agricultural land is conserved. So far, all we see is friends. We see the president of the Socreds in Richmond now — and a real estate person — pushing like crazy to get all the blueberry land along Westminster highway. I drive past there every week, backwards and forwards, waiting and watching for that land to go too. It's beautiful agricultural land. I can remember being brought up as a kid in the lower mainland. I can remember those farms on the delta. I can remember old folks telling me that this land is the best-producing land in North America. Where is it now? It's under

[ Page 5147 ]

asphalt and concrete. For crying out loud, haven't we learned our lesson? When will we learn our lesson? When are we going to say that enough is enough? Tell me there isn't land to develop. Oh, yes, it's going to be a little costly, but there's land that's not fit for agriculture on the northeast corner of the lower mainland — Coquitlam, past Coronation Park. One of the reasons that you've been talking about a hospital up on Coronation Park in Port Moody is obviously because someday that Crown land is going to be used for housing.

We started the Mount Burke project, and what happened? This government put an end to it. Mount Burke is not good for agriculture, but it's sure good for building houses. No, Mr. Chairman, the developers wanted that flat land. They want that rich land. It's easier to develop your sewers, put in your wiring, and everything. There are six to an acre right now. Yes, I understand that's happening in Richmond. Mr. Chairman, it's deadly wrong. The minute we come to our senses, the better off we're going to be.

Just on the side, that member talked about the high cost of land and attributed that to agriculture. This government has done more for the high cost of land. Every year they keep talking about releasing Crown land to people for housing and never do in any significant amounts. You're the biggest landholder in the province, with 95 percent of all the land or thereabouts. Good heavens, they took the Housing Corporation and destroyed it. They have done nothing except to put the people of this province in absolute hock. It's an absolutely shameful account of themselves.

Then we go on listening to other speeches by other members. Do you know what I heard, Mr. Chairman, the other day? I heard the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) get up and do a 30-minute stretch on white land claims. The racist overtones, undertones and every other kind of tones were.... If that wasn't the most inane and stupid thing that I've every heard in my life, I'd like to know what is. Return to the people the freedom they once enjoyed. That's what he was suggesting — return to all the people all over this province the right to break up your land into tiny lots and sell them for housing.

MR. HALL: And carry three guns.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and carry three guns. We could put ourselves in absolute jeopardy if we begin to listen to those kinds of remarks from the members on that side. It really worries me. They've probably got government for another year or two. They sure haven't got it for any longer than that. In that time and given their present record, they're going to destroy a lot more agricultural land. Let it go. This is a travesty. It's utterly tragic. Where did they take their advice? When the minister stood up, I expected him to admonish the member for Omineca. I expected him to say that the white land claim is the most specious argument ever delivered. We have had more white people in this province become immensely wealthy by the bad development of land than you can shake a stick at.

Some farmers have been inconvenienced, but, good lord, just because of the fact that some farmers have been inconvenienced, are we to turn around and say: "Okay, for ever and a day we're going to lose all this — much more land"? What you have to do is see to it that those farmers are given an opportunity to live a productive life on the land. Yes, we consumers are going to have to pay more, and so we should — of course we should, and we must — but we must conserve that land at any cost. I don't want to take that land. I want people to own that land. I want farmers to own that land. I want farmers to develop that land for agricultural purposes — and more of it.

Marketing? Sure, give the minister all the help he needs. But the area that has to be absolutely assured is that farmers are given an opportunity to get a good price, and if the government has to involve itself in that, so be it. Any government that can spend $1 billion in downtown Vancouver on a monument to the Premier, B.C. Place, can piddle away other millions on Transpo '86, millions more on convention centres, and millions more on this, this and this, can spend a few dollars to keep the farmers' income at a level that will keep our farmers active and growing. We have to make it a viable industry — not for ourselves, because for the next few years we can import. But there will be a day — don't forget that California is being irresponsible with the utilization 'of its land, and other areas are too — when we will have to be increasingly self-sufficient. When that day presents itself, if we're not ready we're not going to suffer, but our kids, their kids and future generations will.

This is an absolutely beautiful province in which to live. It's a place that people should be able to live for generations to come. However, they can't if they can't be fed. For heaven's sake, let's not become a Third World province just because of ridiculous, ignorant advice.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman. I mentioned earlier, in response to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), that there are two things with the agricultural land reserve that come to the fore in every decision that is made regarding agricultural land. These are: (1) it's political; (2) it's emotional. You've just seen a beautiful example of a member playing political games with the agricultural land reserve, and he knows full well what he's doing. He'll say anything at all, make any statement he wants, get it in Hansard, hopefully get it in the press, and send out all these statements he's made indicating that this government at this time is not responsible to the agricultural community.

You attacked the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who stood up in his place as a member who is free to state his case for his constituents. Not one of your members over there has the guts to do it. Our member makes his point and makes it well. I told him so when he made his statements in this House. He made his case. He said to me: "Mr. Minister, we've got to look at those claims that are not viable agricultural lands in this province and do something about them."

Mr. Member, I'll hang you on your own petard, because no more than ten minutes ago you said: "We acted in haste in the agricultural land reserves. We had to act in haste." You said it. Mr. Member, and yet you are quite prepared to be as political as you can in attacking the government in its attempts to properly identify agricultural land in this province. You have a field day in making that effort, and yet no more than ten minutes ago you made the statement: "We acted in haste." You'll live with those words, Mr. Member, because you did act in haste. You moved quickly and you identified agricultural land that wasn't agricultural land. You had two years to do something about it and you didn't do anything about it.

We talk about the secretariat. Well, one thing about the secretariat: there was no accountability. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that they were able to make their own decisions. I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I

[ Page 5148 ]

as a politician feel that the politician is elected to make decisions and not a group of bureaucrats that are not responsible to anyone.

We have an appeal procedure that we brought into place, and the member for New Westminster knows it full well. Let me just take a moment to explain it so that it is in Hansard to go along with his remarks. We changed the legislation on the appeal procedure and allowed an individual who owns property in fee simple to make application to the minister for leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee on a decision that was made by the Agricultural Land Commission that denied him the right to take the land out of the agricultural land reserve. The old act said you applied to the Land Commission to have land excluded. If they said no, the old act said — that's the NDP act — that you could go back to that court that theoretically judged you before and ask for leave to appeal. If you got two members out of the five-man commission to give you the right to appeal, you could go to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who was Minister of Environment and responsible for the Land Commission at that time, raised the question that you're going back to the same people who judged you the first time to ask them for the right to appeal. He felt in the carrying out of justice that if an individual wanted to apply to appeal a decision he shouldn't go back to the same court that judged him before. So he now had an option. He could go to the Land Commission: if two members of the commission said, "We agree you should go to a body with a broader mandate" — which was the Environment and Land Use Committee — "and appeal this decision, " then he could go; or he could go to the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission and ask for leave to appeal from the minister who was responsible for the Land Commission. It gave him the opportunity to appeal to that — you might say — higher court or court with a broader mandate. Changing the act was to carry out what I call natural justice instead of going back to the same court that judged you in the first case.

In the Wenger case I just have to take a moment in regard to the attack.... They do it all the time. They've attacked the members for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). Yet in regard to the Wenger case, if they took a moment to look at the file and the order and letter that deals with that land that was proposed as a gravel pit, the order indicated that we had to be subject to the section of the Land Commission Act which dealt with soil conservation, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat knows, and with the reclamation of the land after the gravel was extracted. That was the order that was passed, and the decision was placed with the Land Commission to design a procedure or a program that would enable, if they could come to agreement with the owners, the extraction of gravel and then the reclamation of the land back to agricultural purposes.

Just to quote a few things that we're dealing with, what conditions could be put on there — conditions that ELUC would like to see applied? It would like to see suitable buffering for adjacent properties, suitable staging of gravel extraction, reclamation and dust control, suitable contours to allow for future agricultural use, and full conservation of topsoil. Are we concerned about agriculture? Yes, we're concerned about agriculture, but we're also concerned about the economic activity that would take place in that area if I could be worked and you had joint use of the property, finally ending up with agricultural land as the end result.

All these things were placed before the Land Commission so they could make their decision. But interestingly enough, the political member for New Westminster would never state that those people who were involved in making those recommendations dealing with the Wenger property were the chairman of ELUC — that's the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — myself and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is the MLA for that area. You politically attacked the man, indicating that he was going to do something to get a favour for somebody, when he was involved in the discussion and the final decision-making process that said if this can be accomplished and we can preserve the agricultural land reserve then it can proceed, but if not, it won't proceed. And that's exactly what happened. In regard to how they would have to contour the land when they extracted the gravel and when they had to reclaim the land, the economics didn't work out, and as a result, the Land Commission could not issue a permit for them to proceed.

I've stated the comment I had down here about the member for Omineca, who talked about the white land claims. But the member for New Westminster — and I took down his words — said: "Some farmers have been inconvenienced." Now that is the position that that party would take as government. Never mind the individuals out there who have taken that raw land and tried to develop it. Never mind if it's not agriculturally capable land. Never mind that you put in an agricultural land reserve map that was just dropped like a blanket, and that this land was not agricultural land but it was in. So he's inconvenienced. That is how much they think of the individual British Columbian. It's the state they're interested in, not the individual opportunity in this province.

Mr. Chairman, those are mainly the remarks I wanted to make in response to the member for New Westminster, who made as I said earlier, a beautiful political speech which evade all those issues but attempted to get across that this government had no feel for or interest in agricultural activity in this province. But he also knows that agricultural activity in this province is on the upswing. When you look at statistics across Canada, British Columbia is up front and leading in the development of agricultural lands and in agricultural production.

But I have to agree that I do have a responsibility, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and that's to do everything in my power as Minister of Agriculture and Food to make sure that we have a viable agricultural industry in this province. One way of doing that is, of course, that we've got to assist them in technology and in marketing of the product. My staff and I are dedicated to that. Don't make statements, Mr. Member, that this government isn't interested in agriculture. Agriculture has moved far and fast in the past four years, and you're fully aware of that.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, now we've been treated to the normal reply — no reply. I think that the best reply we could probably have had would have been from the now hot-liner, the former minister in charge of the Agricultural Land Commission and former member of ELUC. Mr. Mair is now on record as opposing practically everything that that minister represents. I'm not going to give you a tedious rundown. I think pretty well everything I've said is there for the record. If the minister wants to take that record apart, let him.

[ Page 5149 ]

He says we did it in haste, and we shouldn't admit to doing it in haste. That's the suggestion, of course. I suggest that when you do something, you say what it was you did and describe it honestly. Mr. Chairman, of course we did it in haste. Then he goes on to say that we had two years to do something about it afterwards, and we did. We worked hard with those regional districts — and it wasn't quite two years — from some of which we got cooperation, from others we didn't. They've had five and a half years, Mr. Chairman, and in that five and a half years we've seen erosion of good land.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How do you know that? Where are your statistics?

MR. COCKE: How do I know that? The statistics are very much....

As a matter of fact, I think we're going to keep these debates going for a while, because I had statistics a year ago that we brought up in the House about acres and acres of land that had been let go. I suggest that if it were not for public opinion and the very fact that there was a lot of publicity around a couple of other cases, they too would have gone. "Oh," the minister says, "the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and I were on a committee that decided that we would make it very difficult for them to get that land out." Well, that was after the fact, Mr. Chairman. That was after a hue and cry. I would suggest that the newspapers had a very great influence in that particular situation.

However, the one thing that I wanted to discuss just for a moment with that minister, whose conception of our feeling with respect to the state and vis-à-vis people.... Don't let that former Liberal, who now represents the Socreds, who have expropriated more land through their B.C. Hydro arm — impersonal, without a care or concern about people and where and how they live.... Go up to the Arrow Lakes. Go up to that whole Columbia River basin. Find out how the folks were handled. Then go on up to the Peace River. What a crock.

That member says that I had suggested that someone was inconvenienced. Of course people are inconvenienced from time to time, unfortunately. With the fine-tuning process that we put into play, it was up to the regional districts in cooperation with the commission to get it in or out. What could we have used at the time except the federal agricultural description?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Bob Williams had nothing to do with it. You're so uninformed. Dave Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture from Nanaimo, was fully....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know nothing — any more than you're running the Socreds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order. I wonder if all members of the House could return to vote 10.

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Omineca, who uses the term "dictator," is probably the only one in this House who really knows its meaning, so he should keep his trap shut when he's describing any other person. I take it as an insult to a former member of this House that that member should take that kind of....

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an insult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN. HON. MEMBER: I think he should withdraw that.

MR. COCKE: Madam Member, I would prefer that he didn't withdraw anything.

Mr. Chairman, through you to this minister. I suggest that you get a little bit stronger and put things together. His advice to us about why they broke up the secretariat was absolutely worthless. He knows full well.... I didn't suggest that the secretariat should be out there making decisions. The secretariat should as one voice be advising the Environment and Land Use Committee. That's what they were set up to do — not to make decisions, but to advise their body that they were responsible to. Of course politicians have to make the last decisions. That's what we're here for, and that's particularly what the ministers, once they are appointed. are here for. When you break up a group who have all the avenues funnelling in — the environmental aspects, the agricultural aspects, etc. — to one secretariat. they can come with a much stronger and better advised voice to advise the Environment and Land Use Committee.

So I suggest to you that there's not a lot of use discussing this question with that minister or this government. They find themselves in terrible trouble. The reason they're in such dire straits is because they haven't been listening. Probably the only one that will get back here will be the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). That was a real gerrymander, but good luck to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, hon. members, it would occur to the Chair that we have — this has happened from both sides of the House — infringed or begun to discuss questions that might more properly come under the votes of a minister whose vote is not before us. If at this time we could return to vote 10, the committee would be well served.

MS. SANFORD: During question period today, I raised a question with the minister with respect to the monitoring of the sale of agricultural land to absentee foreigners that he apparently committed himself to last year. I would like to pose some specific questions to the minister. I hope I have his attention, because these are rather brief, specific types of questions.

Could the minister advise the House what form that monitoring is taking? Could he advise whether or not it is part of the monitoring program that was undertaken by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing? Could he advise whether or not the monitoring program that is taking place about the sale of agricultural land to absentee foreigners is related to the size of the parcels of land or whether it just involves the number of sales that are taking place" If the minister could answer those specific questions, then I would like to proceed on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm somewhat disappointed that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has left the chamber. As a matter of fact, I'm disappointed that only four of the

[ Page 5150 ]

opposition members are in their seats for this very important debate.

The member for New Westminster made a couple of comments that I'd like to respond to. The member said that the Canada Land Inventory study was by the federal government. I think that it would be only fair, Mr. Chairman, to have it in the record that this study was a joint provincial/federal venture under the Social Credit government in those days. He also said that he wants people to own their own land. I'd like to draw that member's attention to their own convention in 1967, if I may quote a portion that says: "Lease and not sell land for agricultural purposes to present or future owners or other bona fide farmers." Now that, in my opinion, does not say that they want people to own their own land. Then again in 1971 the New Democratic Party convention went on record again as saying: "When land suitable to agriculture is offered for sale, the NDP government will consider the purchase of such land to be leased for continued agricultural purposes." I think that that should put to rest the statement that he has made, which is really misleading, that they want to see people own their own land. One of the great fears when the freeze first came in was of the owners of land losing that opportunity to own and it all failing into the hands of the state.

I have had a lifetime in agriculture, and I think I know a few things about farming. I also understand some of the hardships that this freeze — the way it was applied and administered by them — can bring on a farmer. I would like to tell the House that I think it's time that they stopped playing politics with the agricultural land reserve. And that's all it has been. They have seen an opportunity here to latch on to something that is dear to the hearts of many people and blow it up for all they're worth for political purposes and for their own political gain.

I could refer to a number of cases where this is quite obvious, but the one in particular I'd like to put on the record is one close to my own home, and it's known as the Stirling farm. Prior to any change taking place on that farm, there used to be great demonstrations taking place around Chilliwack by the Save the Farmland group, actually a group motivated by the NDP for political purposes again. They were out parading — as a matter of fact, the person nominated to run against me in the next election was one of the leaders of these groups that would picket — and creating all sorts of problems anytime anything happened in the agricultural land reserve in Chilliwack.

Mr. Chairman, there is a farm in Matsqui — the oldest farm in Matsqui, a very fine farm with good soil qualities. The owner of that farm found himself locked into the freeze; but he got around it through some of his connections in the NDP by getting permission to build homes on the farm within the reserve. No one can kid me that this is a case of preserving farmland for the original purpose it was intended for: that is, to produce food. But that incident alone proves to me that their program was not to preserve our ability to feed ourselves, but rather to get the control of the land in the hands of the government. That farm is now broken up; it has homes on it, and they're still building homes on it, but it is in the reserve.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I believe it, because it's across the fence from me.

Mr. Chairman, I called the president of the Save the Farmland group at the time and said: "We have a situation going on down here that I think you should look at." He said: "What is it?" I explained it all, and he said: "We know all about it, but it's out of our area; we don't go that far." But it so happened that they were about 9 or 18 miles farther west shortly after. They can't go around kidding the public or trying to kid anyone at all that they're sincere in all of this nonsense that they create whenever anything happens in the agricultural land reserve.

I'd like to make a few suggestions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the reserve, because I have been close to it for many years and I see some of the faults. One of the great faults, of course, was the mapping originally done from the air and put down, and anything that fell within that was preserved. I think that if we're going to tell people that they're locked into their land, then we must be able to prove to them that they can make a living on that land. It is with this in mind that I would like to suggest to our minister that the province be split up into regions based on agricultural suitability in order to arrive at minimum parcel size. We know that at the moment the minimum parcel size to be retained is two acres. I'd like to put any one of those members across there on two and a half or three acres of land and tell them to make a living, because it's not possible at all. It creates a terrible hardship. I am suggesting that we should be dividing the province up into regions based on agricultural capability. We know that certain parts of the province are only suitable for grain or for grazing purposes. We have other areas suitable for tree-fruit production. We have other areas ideally suited to mixed farming. We have my own area which is ideally suited to small fruit, vegetables, dairying, poultry and so forth.

Once that is determined, I suggest that we should make a study of each of those functions to determine the minimum parcel size required to run a viable unit. We know that if you're going to be producing food on a farm, you have to do it mechanically. We cannot afford to farm today like we used to many years ago. Labour costs are too high, so it's got to be mechanical. Therefore we must take into consideration the necessary high investment in equipment, relate that to the production that would be required, and relate that to the acreage required to produce that production. I'm saying that the blanket approach of a minimum parcel size of two acres and above must be retained, but we must look at the province in regions and determine just what the capabilities are.

I would also like to go on record as saying, as I've said many times, that my government and I are very supportive of preserving our ability to feed ourselves. I think that this is where you people lose sight of the whole business of food production, because you cannot continue to see what we have established in 1973 or 1974 as what's going to be suitable in years to come. Really, the whole purpose of preserving agricultural land is not to preserve land per se, but to preserve our ability to feed ourselves into the unforeseeable future.

We know that any province or country that is self-sufficient in food is economically and politically sound, and we intend to preserve that. But we also know that we have a lot of small parcel sizes out there that are too small for many functions. I'm thinking mainly of root crops. But then, of course, we have the situation where you could say that possibly a four- or five-acre parcel of land could be used for poultry production. We have a problem there because we have our marketing board schemes in place which restrict people to certain quota allocations and so forth. Therefore it's

[ Page 5151 ]

not possible to just turn around and buy a four- or five- acre parcel of land and say, "Well, I can't afford to produce berries or vegetables on it or graze cattle, but I'll raise poultry," because that is no longer possible under our marketing schemes. I would think that the other area of production could be hog production. There is no restriction there as far as getting into it is concerned, but we know that we have severe pollution restrictions.

When you stop to think of all these things, it is absolute nonsense that we should be telling those people who are locked into those non-viable parcels of land that they must stay there and farm them. I was rather pleased when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said that he would support the removal of agricultural land provided there was a justifiable need. As I understand the meaning of "justifiable," that means defendable.

MR. MACDONALD: Were you there? That's hearsay.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member who is calling "hearsay" will no doubt have an opportunity to get on his feet and state that he did not say that he would support the removal of land from the the agricultural land reserve if it was justifiable. I was rather pleased to hear that, and I'll be disappointed if he can stand on his feet when I'm finished and deny that he said that for the record.

I think it is time we put to rest this political game that is played by the NDP in the administration of our Agricultural Land Commission and the preservation of the agricultural land reserve. We know that their policy is to use various vehicles to further socialize Canada, such as schools, labour unions, cooperatives and so forth. Now they've latched onto the land issue, and I think it's time that stopped.

We could talk about the decisions they made on Tilbury Island. What do you have to say about that? I hope someone will get up and defend that decision. Those are very annoying developments that have taken place, not only for me as a politician but also for me when I was farming. I can assure you, when I see some of the decisions that you people allowed to be made, and then when you come along and tell us that we're doing terrible things to our land, when we know we have very little difference in acreage within the reserve today compared to what was there when we took over. I think it's absolutely disgusting that this sort of nonsense should continue.

I'm recommending very strongly to our Minister of Agriculture and Food that a very serious look be taken towards the viability of that land that must be retained in the reserve. Otherwise, we're kidding ourselves. Not only are we kidding ourselves, but we're creating terrible hardships out there in the field. I can recall the days when I would see families who were unable to make ends meet having to leave their farms and lose them because it was costing more to produce than what they were getting.

Then, of course, we have the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who mentioned in one of his speeches how some farms weren't self-sufficient in feed. It's a little late to get back on that one, but he obviously has a lot to learn about farming in our province.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Before you start blowing your whistle for the farmer, you'd better learn the time.

Having been a farmer for a number of years and involved in it all mv life, having been close to a year on the Land Commission and now being on the political side, I think it is time we quit playing games. It is time we took a constructive look towards the whole program. It's time we recognized the fact that the purpose of this act was not to control people on their land, which you people would like to do.

MR. LEA: We want it all.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes. I have your number, and that's why I can speak as I do. I've been watching it closely and, as I say, I have watched it from the various sides, and I think it is time we made some dramatic changes in this thing and based our retention of land and parcel size in the reserve oil its ability to produce — on its viability. That must be one consideration.

I think the comment made by our minister in respect to the gravel pit is all excellent one. We have many parcels of land throughout this province that could be improved for agricultural purposes if they were taken down, the gravel stripped away and the topsoil replaced. I think you would find, if you really studied it, that we have much land in this province that could be enhanced if the terrain was changed through such a measure as was talked about here.

In closing, I think that one of the other things they seem to forget is that this has to be a total approach it has to be a balanced approach. Don't forget that the success of the farmer and agriculture in this province is not going to be based oil the amount of land that can be controlled through the reserve, but rather their success is going to be based on the population growth. The greater the population growth we experience in this province, the more success the farmer will have. We have experienced this, and last year's immigration figures for the farmer have shown their market enlarged quite substantially because of more people coming into this province. We must keep in mind that there has to be proper balance. There has to be land made available for residential purposes. Once you get that, then you're required to produce jobs, and land has to be made available for industrial and commercial development. It's got to be a balanced approach. I think that it's time that we looked at it that way and considered it from the standpoint of the farmer and particularly those who are locked into non-viable units.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, seated in the gallery are some special guests. They're students from the Vancouver Community College, King Edward Campus. They're attending special classes there on adult upgrading courses. In fact, a number of them are native students from the Outreach classes located at the Musqueam reserve, the Native Adult Education Centre and the Native Counselling and Referral Drop-in Centre. They're here with their teacher, Barbara Ash. I think we should welcome them all.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman. I was hoping by this time that the minister would have had some information with respect to those studies. Just before he gives that information, I'm just amazed this afternoon at the various ways in which the back bench on the government side can tell us they just can't wait to get that land out of the agricultural land reserve.

[ Page 5152 ]

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was not very subtle. He was quite open in his approach that it's nonsense to keep this agricultural land in any kind of reserve; we've got lots of agricultural land, enough to feed all of North America; for heaven's sake, let's build houses on it. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not very subtle either. He can't wait to get rid of all that agricultural land and get it taken out.

I was interested in the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who, it seems to me, should know better. As a member of the former Land Commission, as a farmer himself, as someone who must recognize the value of farmland....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He knows about turkey quotas, does he?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the member for Central Fraser Valley is saying virtually the same thing, only he's a little more subtle about it. He is a little more subtle about taking vast areas out from the agricultural land reserve. It's fascinating to me to watch and listen to all of these people on the government side who just wish they could find some way of getting all that agricultural land out of the reserve so it can be developed by developers. They can't wait, Mr. Chairman. It's been very obvious this afternoon. I'll give the minister an opportunity now to answer those questions that I posed earlier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Since my name has been bandied around here a little bit this afternoon about the Land Commission and the opposition I put up to that bill when it was brought into the House, I thought it might be appropriate that I talk a little bit about the agricultural land reserve and the commission. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it amazes me that that member for Comox, who just took her seat, believes that no individual in British Columbia should own land and that it should all be owned by the state. That's the policy of the party that she represents. They do not believe in private ownership of land. She has stated it just recently; the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) stated it; others over there have stated it. They believe in a communist state where the state owns all of the land. That's exactly what they were going to do when they brought in the original bill. Had it not been for the opposition of the day, that's exactly what would have happened. No individual in British Columbia would have had any rights, and that's their policy today. They're trying to cloud it over by saying that we're trying to get all the land out of the ALR, which is a bunch of hogwash. Just because the wife of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is managing a by-election campaign.... She probably wrote the speech for him when he was talking about the ALR.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the vote, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm talking about the preservation of farmland. The member for New Westminster had to make that little speech, which was a bunch of hogwash — absolute hogwash! Such hogwash I've never seen in this chamber before. When they brought in the ALR, they didn't bring it in to preserve agricultural land. They brought it in as their great, overall plot to be a....

AN HON. MEMBER: To be a landlord.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. Well, to be a landlord — yes, they were going to own all the land. But they wanted to be the chief architects. They wanted all the zoning done by this group of bureaucrats and they would twist the dials on the control. That's exactly what it was. Mr. Chairman, I must remind the House and all the great people of British Columbia once again that that original bill gave nobody any right of appeal to anybody. The original bill brought in by that socialist government when they were government gave nobody any right of appeal. They could designate the land. They could do anything they wanted to. They took a big, broad brush and put rock piles in it, gravel pits in it, marshes in it and forests in it. They put everything in the ALR. Then they talk about us taking land out of the ALR. When they were government, what did they do?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think it's time we reminded the House and the people of British Columbia just how fictitious that group on the other side is. After bringing in their own act when they were government, what did they do? They took out of the agricultural land reserve by a dictum that they brought in, contravening their own bill that they had brought in, some of the best agricultural land in the province out of the act. That was less than two years after they'd brought in the act. It grieves me that these people can peddle such hogwash in this chamber. That's exactly what it is.

What did they do up in the great Peace River country? Before the ink was dry on the bill they brought in, they allowed B.C. Hydro to take out a great big strip of the best farming area to build a big building and yard. They took it out. What did they do with Tilbury Island, one of the best tracts of agricultural land in the province? The then Minister of Economic Development said: "Oh, we want that for industry. We'll take it out." That was before the ink was dry on the act that they brought in.

Mr. Chairman, if I were allowed, I'd tell you and the people of British Columbia exactly what kind of people they are on the other side of the House. But parliamentary tradition will not allow me to do that. I do want to tell you that there is example after example in this province, where before the ink was dry on the very act that they brought in to preserve agricultural land, they were snapping it out by the hundreds of thousands of acres. They were taking out the best agricultural land in this province before the ink was dry. Yet they stand up in this Legislature with the big circles around their heads. Pious! The people of this province should recognize that group over there for what they are. They are political politicians of the worst type and they're not completely truthful with the people of this province.

MR. HALL: I think first of all that the House perhaps should sympathize with the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who just had the misfortune to introduce some guests from a community college in the gallery today and witnessed a couple of speeches that indicated, I think, the paucity of content from the government side.

We had the example from Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who believes that instruments for the propagation of socialism in this province are the schools, the credit unions and the trade unions. We have a minister of the Crown who says that thousands of acres were taken out of the ALR, when

[ Page 5153 ]

the figures from his own department show that never has the figure of one thousand acres ever been exceeded since the act was passed, except when they were in government. Mr. Chairman, when the member for Central Fraser Valley looks under the bed each night, he's not looking for dust. I'll tell you what he sees. He sees the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) looking in the other side. If he wasn't so pathetic, it would be comical.

We may have taken land out of the land reserve because of agreements made and because of the plans that were being laid by the regional districts — plans that were made for the people of British Columbia for hydro. They were plans that were made for industrial development, which they're now claiming credit for every Saturday and Sunday afternoon in prime time television. Moving pictures of people who voted against the economic development corporation are shown on those advertisements on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. People who voted against the acts of the government of 1972-75 are now wallowing in self-adulation and self-praise for the economic development corporation on the very land that that minister's just tried to excoriate us about. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that in all of the instances of land taken out of the agricultural land reserve that the minister tried to suggest to us, not one piece of land was taken out of the agricultural land reserve for a New Democratic Party supporter, and they can't say that for Social Credit. To get land out of the agricultural land reserve these days, you've got to be a Socred; if you're not a Socred, you've got to know a Socred — and that's the fact. With all the wriggling and all the messing around you want to do, you can't get over the fact you've got Gloucester, you've got Spetifore and you've got the gravel pit. You live with it Mr. Minister. Shame on you! That's the story of the agricultural land reserve, and you can't get away from that. Every single application has been surrounded by Socreds, ex-Socreds, lawyers, ex-Attorneys-General, ex-everything, presidents of the Social Credit Party — it's a joke. I'll tell you, when I go to Kamloops, Mr. Chairman, I shall be telling this story frequently.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'm going to go and straighten them out because you'll mess it up.

MR. HALL: I can say everything I've said inside the House outside the House, which is a lot more than I can say for some people on the other side of this House.

Mr. Chairman, now that we've got that out of the way, I've got a question for the minister. I would like to ask him if he could tell me of the current status of any applications that may be before him for removal — either in or out — from the agricultural land reserve of the Grauer farm — it may be that the Chairman could ask this question better than I can — which is adjacent to the Spetifore property. The Grauer farm is adjacent to the 523 acres which we've had a great deal of discussion about, and I wondered if the minister can tell me if the 31 0-acre former Grauer farm — south of Highway 17. east of Point Roberts Road — is at the moment being considered by any of the bodies supervised by the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, regarding the application of the Grauer farm, I have no knowledge of where it is in the system. If it's before the Agricultural Land Commission, they will be working on it and making a decision, If it's an application that is subject to an appeal procedure, it will proceed in the normal manner. To my knowledge, I can't respond to where it is in the system, Mr. Member. I can get that information for you, if you like.

MR. HALL: If the minister wouldn't mind, I would appreciate that. The point I'm trying to make, and which I think this side is trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is made well, I think, by the correspondence I'm sure the minister has seen, that emanated over a year ago from a large group of people who cannot be described by even the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) or his colleague from Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) as being socialist, and that is the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Consumers Association of Canada. the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, the B.C. Women's Institute, the Planning, Institute of B.C. and the United Church of Canada. Now I suppose if you think that schools, trade unions and credit unions are the basis of the terrible plot that is going on, you can think anything. The point is — and the opinion that they express, one which is shared by most people — is that the amendments regarding the appeal procedures that this government saw fit to pass, propose or push through the House are now looked upon in this way: that because they allow appeals directly to the cabinet, they, in effect, mean that the first, second or third steps in the process are just that: they're steps in the process that have to be gone through before you get to cabinet. In other words it's similar to labour legislation. If you propose a complicated series of events that will eventually lead to a final determination by somebody or other, what happens in the case of dispute is that you just simply go through those steps as fast as possible.

What the Institute of Agrologists and those other groups that I've mentioned fear is that the appearance before the Agricultural Land Commission is now only a necessary step on the way to an appeal to the politicians in Victoria. That is the point we're trying to make. The point we're trying to make and prove is that the number of acres that have now escalated from what had previously been an acceptable figure, even with fine-tuning and all those other expressions the minister has used, is now no longer acceptable. The amount through the years since the agricultural land reserve was set in operation has, as of the last year of record, reached over 1,200 acres. You can see that those people who wish to take land out of the land reserve for developmental purposes are obviously looking upon their appearance before the agricultural land reserve as just a step in a chain of events. It's just a thing to be got rid of as fast as possible; they don't really care what the result is; it's just a step in the process.

That's the point of view that's being expressed forcibly by this side. I don't think that it's exaggerating one little bit to say that a province that can't feed itself but which is going to allow its farmland and potential agricultural production to be eliminated is placing itself in a ridiculously unsafe position from a security point of view. I'm not talking about wars: I'm talking about economic security. That is the answer that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is seeking. Somebody should just take him to one side and whisper it to him one day. That's what's wrong with his argument. A country that can't feed itself is a country that can't look after itself. One has only to travel widely — as do most cabinet members, I'm sure — to know the truth of that.

I would appreciate it if the minister will find out that information about the Grauer farm. As I pointed out, what

[ Page 5154 ]

has gone wrong with the appeal procedure is that they have now made it just the last step in a chain of events, and nobody really cares any more about the Agricultural Land Commission.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I guess we can debate this on and off for the next several days. The member over there knows full well that the legislation, as it was written originally, said to an individual who applied to the Land Commission and who was turned down: "You have the right of appeal, but you must go back to the court that judged you and denied you and ask for permission to appeal it to the Environment and Land Use Committee. It's their legislation." The Minister of Environment at the time, the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), amended the act to allow that system to proceed in the same manner, with one exception, because he was concerned about natural justice being done. He said that in going to the Agricultural Land Commission and going through the court that has already judged you, there should be an avenue where the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission would be able to determine whether or not the individual had sufficient evidence which would allow the right of appeal. That's natural justice, Mr. Member. If you're going to argue that point, you're saying to those owners of land out there that it's locked into the agricultural land reserve and that they don't have the same rights as other people who are attempting to appeal a decision.

I just want to make a comment in regard to the acreage that has been excluded from the agricultural land reserve since its inception. As I and some of my colleagues have mentioned here today, it's interesting to hear the political rhetoric from across the way in regard to the political decisions made by this government with regard to agricultural land exclusion.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you some figures: requested by municipalities and regional districts, lands that have been excluded — the request has been examined and has been recommended by the Agricultural Land Commission — totalled 93,040 acres since inception — from 1973 to 1980 when the last Land Commission annual report came out; 98.5 percent of the land excluded by municipalities and regional districts was recommended to cabinet by the Land Commission; approved by cabinet over the Agricultural Land Commission's objection — 1.45 percent, a total of 1,383 acres. That's not a bad track record, where Land Commission recommendations have been accepted with the exception of 1.45 percent.

In regard to lands requested by individual owners and approved by the Land Commission without any reference at all to cabinet, since inception — this is where the Land Commission deals with an individual owner's land — there have been 23,927 acres. Land released, or appeals allowed after a hearing by the Environment and Land Use Committee, where leave to appeal has been granted by two commissioners, totalled 1,169 acres; when leave to appeal was granted by the minister, 832 acres. So out of the total acreage excluded since inception of the agricultural land reserve, which totals about 120,351 acres up to April 1, 1980, 1,383 were excluded by the cabinet over the Agricultural Land Commission's recommendation not to exclude them, and those deal with properties or applications put forward by municipalities and regional districts. Where leave to appeal has been granted by the minister and the appeal has been allowed, it's only 832 acres. So a total of about 2,000 acres out of 120,000 acres excluded have been approved either by the cabinet or the Environment and Land Use Committee over the Agricultural Land Commission's objections or by an appeal that's been granted by the minister.

I think it's a pretty good indication of the autonomy and capability of the Agricultural Land Commission. They readily recognize, and state publicly, that they have a mandate which they must live with. On occasions, because of that mandate, they aren't allowed to make a decision where they may feel, looking at the total picture, they could allow the exclusion. That, in many instances, is why two commissioners sign the leave for appeal to go to the Environment and Land Use Committee for a decision.

Mr. Chairman, I just give you those figures which, I think, will indicate to you that some of the statements that are made by the members opposite are somewhat exaggerated. I smile when I hear about all the Social Credit supporters who apply and get land out. I guess that means we have more friends than they have. I guess if you're a political being in this province, you have a party affiliation, and if it happens to be Social Credit on your flag, you're bad. If you're NDP and apply and we allow it, I guess you're good. I don't know, but I think it's a humorous argument to put forward.

Going to the remarks of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), in regard to what form of checking was done, it was monitoring, checking the tax rolls and looking at changes in ownership to get a feel for how big the problem was in the Peace River country. There's an interministerial committee, and one of my staff members is on that committee. There was a preliminary press release put out by Lands, Parks and Housing some time ago. The preliminary report indicated that it was not a substantial problem; but there was a greater prevalence of acquisition of land by foreign owners in the Peace, and some in the north and south Okanagan.

I guess the question that has to be asked is what the tolerance level is. When does it become a major problem, and do you develop legislation that can be far more restrictive than you would like? This interministerial committee — task force, if you want to call it that — is carrying on gathering information and, I would assume, will be submitting a report on their findings in the near future. But it's under the auspices of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MS. SANFORD: I like the way the minister sloughed over that answer. He did not give very much clear information as to what was happening with respect to the foreign purchases of land — agricultural land in particular. He mentioned that in the Peace River area the problem is not very serious. It's only a minor problem; they're looking at it, and they will get a report some time in the future. They have been looking at tax rolls, trying to determine the extent of the sales in that area, and I assume in the Okanagan. I don't know if he's doing this for agricultural land throughout the province. He didn't make clear whether or not he's carrying on with agricultural land concerns in terms of foreign ownership throughout the province. In the Peace River alone....

According to the information we received from the National Farmers Union today, almost 30 percent of that farmland is now in the hands of absentee foreigners.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How do you know that? Where's the study?

[ Page 5155 ]

MS. SANFORD: We have the information, and the minister asks how I know that. For instance, we have information that dates back for the past two years from the Institute of Agrologists, who themselves have been monitoring the taxes and the assessment rolls up in the Peace River area. They indicated to us well over a year ago that at that time, based on the work that they had done in the assessment offices there, foreign ownership had reached 25 percent. Some 25 percent of all of the assessment notices were being mailed outside this country. Mr. Chairman, that's a disgrace with a resource as valuable as our farmland.

Does the minister not look at all of the assessment rolls in that area, or does he think 30 or 25 percent is quite okay in terms of foreign ownership of agricultural land? I think that minister is not at all interested in the foreign ownership of agricultural land in this province. He stated it before. He stated that he is very reluctant to get into any kind of interference with the sale of farmland in British Columbia.

I have a quote here somewhere in case he's forgotten, This is out of the Victoria Times, April 1980, just over a year ago. The minister said: "I personally don't like to interfere with a person who owns his farm and wants to sell it." In this article he's talking about the foreign ownership problem. "'I hesitate getting the government involved with the right to sell,' Hewitt said." I don't think the minister has changed his mind at all in spite of the fact that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture is now so concerned about the foreign ownership of land in this province that they passed a resolution last fall at their convention calling on the government to bring in legislation to put an end to foreign ownership of agricultural land in British Columbia. Why doesn't he follow the lead of all of these other provinces that have taken some action? Why doesn't he look at what the B.C. agrologists have been submitting to this cabinet and to all of the members of this House for the past two years? Why doesn't he pay any attention to the brief that was presented to him again today where there is a desperate call on the part of farmers in this province for this government to take some action on that issue?

"Oh, we've been looking at the assessment rolls, and the problem is not serious. We have a committee that's going to make a report sometime in the future. I can't give any information." He says this in response to a question that I posed to him today. "No, I can't given any information about the foreign ownership of farmland." Mr. Chairman, the attitude of this government on that issue is terrible. I do not understand why they do not bring in legislation now in order to prohibit the sale of agricultural land to absentee foreigners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister I must remind all members that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, please bring me to order if I go beyond the terms of reference of the committee.

I'm attempting to respond to the member for Comox, and I relate to a release on foreign land ownership, January 30, 1981, by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hen. Mr. Chabot) which indicates some information. For example, the principal results were as follows: 84 percent of the declarations were personal declarations and 16 percent were corporate; of the personal declarations, 1.2 percent were filed by foreign citizens and 98.8 by Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. That's after an analysis done by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on a random sample of approximately 19,000 declarations out of a total of 190,000 declarations filed in 1980 — a 10 percent random sample. That's not a bad deal. You quoted from the National Farmers Union report which said 30 percent. I say they may feel quite strongly it's 30 percent. If they've got a statistical report, I'd appreciate it if they would attach it as an addendum to their report to me today. Unfortunately. they didn't.

Of the corporate declarations, 3.5 percent were filed by corporations with one or more foreign citizens as directors and 96.5 percent were filed by corporations with only Canadian citizens and landed immigrants as directors. I think that's a pretty good indication on a preliminary report that indicates that, on the first look. It wasn't a major impact. At the end of this press release it said: "However. additional studies on the values, acreages and types of land concerned were necessary, and a report will be made available when these additional studies are complete." Mr. Chairman. that falls under the auspices of the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing, and I'm sure he will wish to comment during his estimates.

In regard to other provinces and foreign ownership of land, I understand that in Ontario there is a requirement for non-resident owners and corporations to file a disclosure statement — not restriction but a disclosure statement. In Newfoundland there are no restrictions on the sale of private lands to owners who are non-residents. In Prince Edward Island there are some restrictions. Nova Scotia has no restrictions on the resale of privately held land. New Brunswick has no existing legislation regarding private or Crown land disposition to foreigners.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has a policy on Crown agricultural land which is made available for private ownership: that it be sold to Canadians. So we have a policy in place at this particular point in time that when we sell agricultural land previously owned by the Crown it will be sold to Canadians.

Saskatchewan restricts the amount of agricultural land purchased by non-residents to 10 percent. There are some exemptions in their legislation. In Quebec private land purchased by non-Canadians is subject to a tax equal to one-third its price. The purchaser may recoup this expense if he becomes a resident. So a non-resident can acquire agricultural land, or private land — I assume it covers all private land — but they are subject to a bonus or a penalty in that regard. In Manitoba we understand that ownership of agricultural land by foreigners is restricted to 20 acres. In Alberta foreign individuals or corporations may own up to 20 acres in two parcels for the uses zoned. They look at problems with that legislation. As I understand i,t there are instances where because of loopholes they have some problems with it.

So it's not all black and white, as the members opposite would lead you to believe, in that we should bring in legislation that says that no foreigner shall own agricultural land in this province. Just to bring the member up to date on what I said in April 1980. I am concerned with the government's involvement in the personal lives of the people of British Columbia. We have carried on the agricultural land reserve. I can accept that because of the preservation of good, viable agricultural land for future food production, but that is a restriction on a personal right of the farmer who has owned that land. Some land is not viable, is marginal, has been

[ Page 5156 ]

locked in and shouldn't have been. We've created a pretty, major hardship for him.

My colleagues have stood up in this House and said that we have to look at this and ensure that we're being fair and realistic in this preservation of farmland. That's basically what they've said. We are going to have to review it and ensure that we are being fair to all and we aren't being bound by Canada Land Inventory maps which in some cases were inaccurate.

The other thing, Madam Member: now that we have said we will preserve agricultural land for future food production, as I understand the opposition across the way, they now want us to tell that farmer who owns that agricultural land: "We're going to restrict you further. It doesn't matter that you broke that land 20 years ago, that you worked all your life, that the land has appreciated in value and it's your only pension plan, that because you're a private operator and don't belong to a company or have a union contract, your investment for your retirement years is in that farmland." We've already told him he can only sell it as a farm. Now they want us to say: "You can't get the best price for it."

That's what I'm concerned about and have some difficulty with. That man has owned that land; it's his in fee simple. Now we're coming in with another government regulation to encroach on his personal rights. I have some difficulty with that. I know I can preserve agricultural land for future food production, because we have an act and we have a reserve, but now we're saying to him: "You've got another cross to bear, Mr. Farmer, and that is that we'll tell you who you can sell to." I'm sorry, I have some difficulty with that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's their policy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, that's their policy. You would be encroaching further on the personal lives of the people of British Columbia.

I just hope, Madam Member, that sometime in this House we all realize just how far down that road you want to go. Your party and a lot of your members declare themselves as out-and-out socialists. We use that term lightly over here periodically, to get a rise out of you; but at the same time that's where you're going, and it's unfortunate, because there are a lot of individuals out there who work hard and work long hours....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the floor.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In closing, I just want to make the point again that if it is socialism you want, and you want state control of land, commerce and finance, then stand up and tell the people out there that's what you want. But don't walk the middle of the road and waver here and there and say out there to the public: "We've changed our spots. What we did from 1973-75 was wrong. We're sorry. We'll never do it again." You're telling me that you want to get further involved in the personal lives of the people of British Columbia. I can't accept that. That's why I want to be darn sure, Madam Member, before we take any action that we know all the ramifications of what we're doing

MS. SANFORD: Again the minister has indicated to us that he is very reluctant to interfere with the farmer in any way, shape or form or to interfere in what he calls the private lives of the citizens of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, you may not agree with this statement, but I certainly am very pleased that we had that opportunity to bring in an agricultural land reserve when we did. It would never have happened under this minister, because he is of the opinion that this is an interference in the private lives of the people of British Columbia. I got the distinct impression that it was with a great deal of reluctance that he accepted the legislation which preserves farmland in this province. I certainly got the impression that had he been the minister in those days, we would never have seen any attempt to preserve agricultural land for future food production. There's no doubt about that. It's very clear from his statements this afternoon.

The other thing the minister mentioned was that he wanted to make sure that the farmers could get the best possible price for their land, because it was their retirement and so on. But does he not realize that in that process he is also putting an upward pressure on the land, thus making it very difficult for young people to get started in agriculture, which is the other end of the scale, Mr. Chairman? In a brief presented to all of the members of this House, the Institute of Agrologists from the Peace River area indicated that there was no doubt in their minds, in terms of the work that they have done on looking at assessment roles, that the foreign purchase of land in that particular area was putting an upward pressure on the value of farmland in the Peace River area. The minister should know that it's difficult enough for young people to get involved in farming these days without having that additional upward pressure caused by absentee foreigners who wish to speculate in British Columbia land. They want to buy it as an investment. They want to make money on it. They want to take that money outside of this country. Our farmland is far too precious for that.

The other comment that the minister made that I just have to respond to, Mr. Chairman, is that we as NDPers wish to continue putting restrictions on people in this province. That's what he mentioned. I'm quoting the minister. I'm wondering what the Conservative Premier of Alberta is thinking, because it was only a couple of years ago that they brought in legislation restricting foreign ownership of farmland in the province of Alberta. Within one year of the implementation of that legislation, the decrease in the purchase of farmland in Alberta by absentee foreigners was 95 percent — a 95 percent decrease as a result of the legislation brought in by Conservative government in Alberta to deal with the problem of absentee foreign purchase of farmland.

The MLA for North Vancouver is sitting over there reading — I shouldn't mention that he's reading a paper. He agrees with us. He stated well over a year ago that he felt it was high time we brought in legislation restricting the purchase of agricultural land by absentee foreigners. I just wish that this cabinet could understand the problems that are involved in this issue. I wish that they would finally begin to take some action on this issue. I'm not supposed to mention legislation, I know. They have been looking at the problem since 1976. Every year in the House when I've raised this issue, they tell me: "We're studying it. We're looking at it. We've got a committee going. We're going to get some reports." Never do we get any action on this issue. Based on what the minister is saying today, I don't think we ever will.

[ Page 5157 ]

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to get up again in debate on this minister's estimates, but after listening to the rhetoric from the other side of the floor this afternoon, I was incensed, primarily at the way they were using the good name of the member for Omineca. I think it's time that the truth were known. Certainly — listening to several of those members over there — they absolutely and totally missed the point that I was making previously in debate prior to the Easter break. I'm amused when I listen to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). She looks like she's going to pack it in and leave the chamber. I would suggest, Madam Member, that you stay a few minutes. I'm really amused to hear that she's an instant expert on the Peace River country. If I were the member for Comox, I would want to pay attention to matters a little closer to home than the Peace River. Since I spoke in debate a week ago last Friday in this House, I received a letter. It's not from a present constituent, but a constituent of hers in the past who is now a constituent of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — that member who not only believes that the people of this province shouldn't own land but that they shouldn't own air that's around the province either. I'll read to the House some of this letter that I received from a lady in Campbell River.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not even her riding.

MR. KEMPF: It's the Campbell River–Courtenay area. That's her riding, Mr. Member for New Westminster. It reads as follows:

"There have been hundreds of acres of marginal land that have been designated as agricultural land. In my opinion it would be far better to allow acreage covered with scrub-brush and second- or third-growth fir to be subdivided into hobby farms, so that some agricultural use could be derived from the land. People can afford to develop ten-acre parcels for their own gardens and pastures, where it is not economically feasible to clear 150 acres of marginal land for a large-scale farm operation."

The last paragraph reads as follows:

"I urge you to continue to speak out on this matter. You have much more support than is apparent on the surface."

Madam Member, I would suggest you stick a little closer to home after this.

We hear the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — the member who just recently got up and defended the actions of that former dictatorial Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this province. He defended his actions. I remember very distinctly the Bob Williams task force. He singlehandedly....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Member, and you might learn. He singlehandedly took the agricultural land reserve maps drawn up by the regional districts in this province after public hearings and changed the boundaries. He changed the boundaries of those maps after the public hearings. We remember that, Mr. Member for New Westminster. We remember how he arbitrarily took the maps that were drawn up by the regional districts of this province after bona fide public hearings were held and changed their boundaries. We see that very distinctly in Delta today, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, I got a I little off track. What I wanted to say, was that we seem to be making much progress in these debates with the minister. I like some of the things that I'm hearing him say today. But we're not making any progress at all with the members opposite. I just want to set them straight once again as to what it was that I was saying in debate a week ago. I'd like to reiterate, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You talk about Kemano. Let's talk about land. What do you know about land, Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)? You could stand up and in three seconds tell us all you know about land. Mr. Member, I have nothing but land in my constituency. I spent 18 years of my life living on the land as a farmer in this province. What do you know about land? You're on your feet quite often, Mr. Member, but I wish you'd start saying something.

I'd just like to reiterate for the edification of the members opposite what it was that I was saying in debate the last time I stood. I was saying that we must in this province give the Agricultural Land Commission more flexibility. We must, through the legislation which governs their decision-making, make those changes in order that justice can be done in this province and in order that the inequities caused by land which because of size, quality or economics will never make a farm.... Those inequities have to be rectified to enable that commission to make decisions on a basis of logic and need and make decisions on a basis of other than simply because it's a piece of land that happened to be within ill-conceived boundaries and was reserved for all time as farmland.

All of us in this chamber have not had the intestinal fortitude to do what must be done and to make changes in that legislation brought in with a socialist philosophy — to change it for an individual enterprise public in this province. We have badly hurt many of our citizens out there, outside of these hallowed halls, out there in the real world of this province, because we play partisan politics with this issue, because we have not made those changes necessary to give the Land Commission a greater parameter of decision-making.

[Mi. Strachan in the chair.]

We are literally driving our people from the land, driving out young people from the land. It's a tragedy — young people wishing to subdivide five-acre parcels from the family farm within the reserve in order that they might gain title or obtain a mortgage, in order that they may stay on that family farm and farm it. Mr. Chairman, this is not to suggest someone farm it, like the members opposite, who, as I said before, even if they had a piece of land and even if it was bona fide farmland, would starve to death on it because they wouldn't know what to do with it. The people who really want to farm this land are the young people who, after their parents no longer have a will or an interest to farm that piece of land, want to stay on it and keep it in the family and farm it. We drive these young people from the land. I see it weekly in my constituency.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) shakes her head. They think they're experts on this province, that they know what's going on in the Peace River or the Bulkley Valley. They know nothing.

[ Page 5158 ]

Because we have not made the necessary changes, Mr. Minister, we have created a fictitious land shortage in British Columbia, a land shortage that I say is responsible for the ridiculously high price of not only farmland but also of building lots in this province — building lots so high in price that soon no one will be able to own their own home, let alone the young people of British Columbia. There is a shortage of housing lots in a province where there is nothing but land; where there is nothing but Crown land, we have a shortage of building lots. It's shameful, Mr. Chairman, it's a disgrace. I say again, as I said before in this House in debate on these estimates, shame on us all. Shame on members on all sides of this House for not having done what is right and for not having rectified what is wrong. None of us is perfect, and regardless of who is government, legislation is brought in that can be changed for the better, and we have not done that. I say shame on us all, because we have not done what is just in the case of the agricultural land reserve and the commission which is its steward. We have allowed absolutely stupid things to happen in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again tell this House the story — reiterate how stupid it is that things happen because we have not made those necessary changes in the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission Act — of the Lieuwen farm in Houston, a farm in the agricultural land reserve, a piece of land made up of swamps and gravel pits on which they applied for the building of a sawmill. A public hearing was held and people had their say at that public hearing, but because of the parameters given under the legislation which the Agricultural Land Commission has to work with that application was turned down. Because that application to build a sawmill on a piece of land made up of swamps and gravel pits was turned down, do you know where that sawmill was built? It was built on one of the best pieces of farmland that ever existed in the Bulkley Valley. That's not the end of the story. To build that sawmill, the farmland had to be removed from that piece of ground at a cost to that company in excess of $1 million, which they said publicly they would give to that community to build some facility if they were only allowed to build on the piece of ground that was no good for agriculture. But, no, they were disallowed and the farmland had to be dug out. Do you know what had to be put in in its place? They had to put in gravel. Do you know where they got that gravel? I'll let you guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Columbia River.

MR. KEMPF: They got it out of the Lieuwen farm. That's justice? That's good legislation under which that commission has to work?

I guess I've said enough. The members opposite applaud that kind of a situation. What about the human tragedy in the Lieuwen farm story? What about the Lieuwen family, who for many years tried to farm that piece of ground to no avail? They could not make a farm out of it because it was not bona fide agricultural land. What about the human tragedy? Two generations of the Lieuwen family couldn't make a living on that piece of ground, but they couldn't sell it either. They couldn't sell it for the purpose of building a sawmill. The human tragedy of it was that they lost their life savings. They lost the $200,000 that they were offered for that piece of ground. That's real justice. The members opposite can snicker if they wish, but that is the truth of it.

Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that the minister has heard and that we will all learn from our mistakes, and that the people of British Columbia will listen, understand and demand that the whole matter of the agricultural land reserve be set straight. We know why the boundaries were drawn where they were. That's history, and we know that. We know that we all want to preserve bona fide agricultural land. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) nods his head; he wants to do that too. We all want to preserve that land which is farmland and can grow a useful and rewarding crop of some sort. Government and opposition alike, we want to see our young people stay on the land should they so wish. We all want lots for housing made available at an affordable price in this province. Above all — and I'm sure I speak for members on both sides of the House — we want justice to be done...

MR. COCKE: You don't speak for me on any side of the House.

MR. KEMPF: ...in this province, Mr. Member for New Westminster. All you want is power; that's all you want. You're out on a big power grab, I saw you when you were a minister. I remember you when you were a minister. I saw how you were on a power grab. We'll get into that on other estimates.

Above all, all of us in this chamber, regardless of our political whims, want to see justice done in this province. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister: don't listen to the political rhetoric. Don't listen to those who are politically motivated by a very irresponsible opposition spreading the rumour that if any land is taken from the agricultural land reserve — which Bob Williams drew the boundaries for — then we in this province must surely, somewhere down the road, starve to death. It's total nonsense.

MR. HANSON: Who should take it out?

MR. KEMPF: Read Hansard of a few days ago. I said that once before. I know you weren't in the House. You took a long weekend; that's your prerogative. You should have listened.

It's nonsense that because we would serve an injustice and take land out of the land reserve, land which will never make a farm.... It's absolute, total nonsense that if this is done, down the road somewhere British Columbians are going to go hungry. It's a totally irresponsible situation. We must take that land which will never make farms out of the reserve. We must give the commission the power to make those decisions in a more rational manner.

MRS. WALLACE: They have.

MR. KEMPF: No, they haven't, Madam Member.

We must draw a new land reserve map, a logical land reserve map — not the one using the Canada Land Inventory, not the one Bob Williams drew boundaries around. We must draw a new land reserve map in this province and, members opposite, we must move the responsibility from the political arena. We've got to remove that responsibility. I implore the minister to get on with the job.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm not a farmer. I come from Burnaby North, an urban area, but I do like food, and I think most of my constituents are hoping they're going to be able to provide

[ Page 5159 ]

food for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren for many years to come. That's why I'm on my feet. I've been sitting here listening once again to the Social Credit members talk out of both sides of their mouth on the whole matter of how to save land. One side of the mouth says: "We're committed to it." Then the other side starts backing off and talking about making changes, about flexibility and about leaving it to the politicians as being the best way to preserve farmland. When I hear that kind of talk, Mr. Chairman, I feel I must get on my feet. I want to express my complete contempt for the Social Credit government and the way they have handled the preservation of farmland since they assumed office. If one thing will defeat this government, it will be the way they have shown no true commitment to the saving of farmland. It's the way they put commitments and political payoffs to their Socred developer friends first. That comes first with them, not the saving of farmland.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) calling over today: "Aye. Aye. Let's get on with the vote." I have in front of me a clipping from 1973, at a time when the Socreds were in opposition. at a time when we didn't hear any calls of "Let's get on with this debate and on to the next minister." Let me remind you that the minister sitting across from me, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, stood on his feet.... "Don Phillips ended his filibuster against Bill 42 Tuesday after more than 12 hours on his feet." I was here and a number of my colleagues were here. It was the most disgraceful period in the history of this Legislature. The very people who held up debate on the land bill hour upon hour are now sitting there and asking us to believe that they're committed to it.

Let me read to you some of the quotes from Mr. Don Phillips. His performance, his filibuster, ended with "a plea for mercy" for British Columbians, an impassioned request that Bill 42 be withdrawn, and a prediction that "there will be uprisings in the province if it is not." Do you know what he actually said, Mr. Chairman? "The passage of Bill 42 would result in uprisings similar to the Indian protest at Wounded Knee, South Dakota." How's that for a high level of debate? He actually said this. He actually predicted that the B.C. legislation would reduce food production, which he said had happened in Chile. And we have to sit here and listen to that kind of debate hour upon hour. He predicted uprisings. We all recall the very interesting demonstrations out there, which were obviously whipped up on a straight political basis. When that member for Omineca accuses this opposition today of holding things up, of political rhetoric, and says we're just doing political posturing, I'll be glad to stand here and do some political posturing, if it means saving farmland in this province.

When we heard the Minister of Agriculture reply to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). who had made an impassioned plea to stop the sellout of our farmland to absentee owners, do you know what he said? He sure gives us a lot of hope for preserving farmland. Remember, he is the Minister of Agriculture. He said: "Oh, we can't do that. You know, it was hard enough on the farmers when the Land Commission was brought in. Now we cannot again impose more hardships on the farmer." Yet the farmers themselves have come to protest to this government and to the opposition their concern about the erosion of their land by foreign ownership.

In listening to the speeches today by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the member for Omineca and a few others, I was really concerned that if we don't let that government out tomorrow we're in trouble as far as food is concerned.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just listened to the member for Burnaby North talk out of three sides of her mouth. She was in the Legislature when I spoke against the original Bill 42, which I have to explain again was a completely dictatorial bill, brought in by a socialist government that today is still a socialist government. It's a socialist government that doesn't believe in the private ownership of land. Make no mistake about it. They can cloud it with all the iffy-iffy stuff they want. Just recently during this session two of their members said that the state should own all the land. That's what it's all about. You talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. That member over there who just took her seat realizes full well that before the ink was dry on the bill they brought in and amended, they were taking acres and acres of the best agricultural land in the province out of the ALR.

Don't forget that if it had not been for this opposition, no landowner in this province would have had the right of common law, the human rights, the bill of rights, any of the rights that we have always recognized and the our heritage built in this province, had the original bill gone through this Legislature. It was only the opposition of the member standing speaking now that brought them to their senses and made them change the bill so that the normal rights in this province would be restored.

They can make light of all the debate in this House, but they will never escape the fact that the original bill they brought in was not brought in to preserve agricultural land; it was brought in as a zoning tool so that eventually that socialist government, when they were government, would have state control over all land and nobody would own land. They're trying to escape that now: they're trying to fluff it all over. These birds over here haven't changed their feathers at all; they're the same as the always were, and they still believe in it. They're coming out talking about grandiose schemes preserving agricultural land. That's not want they wanted to do with their original bill, not at all. They wanted state control over all land. They didn't want individuals in this province to own land, and they still don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before proceeding, I might perhaps again remind the committee that we are in Committee of Supply, and it really is not incumbent upon us to discuss past legislation, although that has been allowed to take place to some degree. Again, to all members, we should avoid personal allusions to another member and remind ourselves that in Committee of Supply we must be relevant. We are debating the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, not the estimates of the Minister of Environment. These estimates are the 1981-82 estimates. That comment, I hope, will be heard by all sides of the committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wanted to take an opportunity to make a few comments here before we adjourn this evening. I'd like to respond to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who's not here at the present time. He had raised a question earlier this afternoon regarding the Grauer farm. I've had my staff check with the Land Commission. The message I've received back is that no application has been received by them as of this time. The second member for

[ Page 5160 ]

Surrey may wish to follow up on that question tomorrow when he's back in the House.

The point I guess I've tried to make all afternoon in regard to the Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve is not in defence of the government, but as an explanation for the record. The opposition have come on pretty strong on the fact that this government does not support the agricultural land reserve. I've attempted, by giving you sound statistics and facts of what happens with agricultural land reserve applications for exclusion.... They go through a procedure which enables the individual to apply to the commission. Should he fail in having land excluded he, of course, has the right, as he did under the old legislation, to ask two commissioners for the right of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. He also has an additional right, and justly so in my opinion, to apply to the minister responsible for the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission and say: "Here is my case. Here is the information." The Land Commission, of course, provides the minister with that information as well and their reasons for rejecting the application. Then the minister determines whether or not they have the right of appeal.

The one thing that I've attempted to get across to the press — there's not many in the gallery, but there's one — is the constant attack about the government interference and the fact that the Land Commission has been reduced in its authority. Let me quote to you the section of the act that was passed in 1973, and I'll quote to you, and to those members of the press who are with us today, the section in the amended act that was put through by the Minister of Environment at that time, who was responsible for the legislation. First of all section 9(l) says : "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, upon the application of a municipality, regional district or the commission, or on his own, by order, exclude any land, whether Crown land or private land, from the reserve established under subsection I of section 8."

Mr. Chairman, the point I make is that since the act was brought into being in 1973 — the order-in-council procedure — the Lieutenant-Governor can exclude land on his own without any recommendation from anybody; he can deal with applications from a municipality, a regional district or the commission. He had that ability then, and I've heard on the Gloucester properties and the Delta properties that this government politically motivated the change in regard to the Land Commission. That section was in there in 1973.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'll read you the new section, Mr. Chairman — 1979 revised statutes, section 11(1): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on his own, on application of a municipality or regional district for land within its territory or on application of the commission, exclude land from a reserve" — one little difference — "on the terms he considers advisable." We went even farther, Mr. Chairman. We even went to a point where we we figured we could place terms if we felt terms were needed.

I go back to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot). We set the terms on that land that was up for exclusion with regard to the gravel pit. That was in our act, not in your act. So the point I make, Mr. Chairman, for the press's benefit and for others, is that that government, when they brought in that legislation.... I'm sure before my estimates are over I will give you examples that will cause you to reconsider some of the statements you've made earlier in this debate. The section in there in 1973 and the section in there now — there's very little difference, if any.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'd like to leave you with tonight before adjourning is that we've talked about the socialist aspect, and the members on this side of the House have referred to what the original Bill 42 was all about. Let me give you some quotations. The member is not here right now, but I'll quote anyway. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), on September 24, 1973, said in Hansard: "It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything...natural should be privately owned." That member sits in this House today, and there is a statement in Hansard that he has made in a debate. Let me give you another one....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, I'll read it again just so everybody is familiar with it. I'd better correct this for the record. I am quoting the statement of the now member for North Island; at that time he represented another riding. "It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything...natural should be privately owned."

Mr. Chairman, the executive assistant to the minister responsible for the Land Commission, the then Minister of Agriculture, was quoted in the Victoria Times, November 24, 1973, as saying: "No one should have the right to own land in British Columbia because they did not make the land themselves." That former Minister of Agriculture sits in this House now as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich).

The final quote is from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).

MR. LEGGATT: What about the present?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is present. She's right there.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a previous Chairman indicated that he felt relevance in this debate would deal with the present and not the past. The present speaker hasn't dealt with anything current since he got on his feet. I would respectfully suggest that he be directed to his present estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point. The minister continues.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I just want to say that I am speaking of the present because we still have the same member sitting here in this House, representing Burnaby-Edmonds for the NDP. In May 1974 she was quoted in Homemakers's Magazine, of all places: "I don't believe in the private ownership of land. It is a myth that we own anything."

Finally, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) — you want current dates; I guess I can get pretty close — who was interviewed in July 1980 said: "So there is an observation that we're not quite as loud and we're not still waving our fists as much as we usually do. We're still as sincere. We're still as socialist."

Mr. Chairman, with those comments which I bring to this House to give indication as to the philosophy of the party opposite, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 5161 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, at the opening of today's sitting, the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely increases in school property taxes.

Let me first observe that to be found in order, such a motion must not contain matters of argument or debate — Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, page 41; House of Commons Debates, 1971 and 1972, page 826, chapter 1566, November 27, 1971. In describing the increases in school property taxes, the hon. member uses the words "massive" and "unwarranted." I'm certain the learned member will agree with the Chair that such adjectives import argument — Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, page 370.

In the motion the hon. member has also referred to "the decline in provincial support for education." While the hon. member's conclusion may in his opinion be supportable, I am sure he will concede that it is indeed a conclusion as opposed to a statement of the matter as contemplated by standing order 35 and interpreted by authorities. On this ground alone, the motion appears to the Chair to be out of order. I should further add that the long-established practice of this House is for the member seeking an adjournment under standing order 35 to rise in his place, state the matter and hand the statement to Mr. Speaker. In this instance, the hon. member rose, stated his intention and then, in my respectful opinion, entered into remarks that can only be described as debate.

Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd has observed in the British House of Commons that in making a submission under this standing order, the member should not seek to make the type of speech which would be made if his submission were successful.

Thirdly, the matter raised must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law — May, sixteenth edition, page 372.

The hon. member has stated, perhaps erroneously, in his remarks that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), under the authority of the School Act, sets the mill rate for provincial school property taxes. Assuming this to be the case, the exercise of a discretion under statutory powers involves no more than the ordinary administration of the law, and as such clearly falls into the prohibition contemplated in May's sixteenth edition, page 372.

For these reasons it is my opinion that the matter raised does not pass the guidelines for a motion under standing order 35.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I think your decisions on all three points are wrong, and I therefore challenge your decision on my application for standing order debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I am just checking to be sure: opinions are not subject to challenge, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will accept the challenge, but it appears to the Speaker that the House has addressed that question before, and I think the House has clearly spoken on the question whether or not opinions are subject to challenge. But I will accept the hon. member's challenge. The question to the House is: shall the opinion of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 19

Division order to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I inform you that during the Easter recess, the Speaker, on your behalf, sent an appropriate expression of sympathy to the family of Felice Avoledo. the former parliamentary chef, who passed away April 11, 1981. I trust that this meets with your approval.

Further, it is my pleasure to file with you special report number 1 of the ombudsman of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the business of the House and the orderly process relating thereto. Inasmuch as there is a precise deadline with respect to school budgets, namely the end of this month, I wonder. In order to expedite debate and examination of this tax-raising proposal of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), whether the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) might not arrange to call the Education estimates tomorrow so that we can deal with that subject matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. members, the Chair is not interested in those kind of arrangements. Perhaps they could be made by the Whips of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think that's the appropriate route to take, Mr. Speaker.

I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 tomorrow morning.

[ Page 5162 ]

MR. LAUK: I stand to debate the motion of the adjournment hour.

We've seen this afternoon an example of how the time of the chamber is so precious. The welfare and well-being of homeowners across the province is not not to be taken into consideration by this chamber during a time when the Minister of Education is involved in such a dissembling plot to raise taxes on the backs of ordinary homeowners. We're adjourning this House at 6 o'clock to go over until 10. Surely we can debate the Minister of Education's announcement this evening. We can spend a couple of hours this evening. I ask the government House Leader to withdraw the motion to sit tomorrow at 10 o'clock and introduce a new motion to sit tonight at 6:05. Let's debate this very important issue. because we have charged this government — namely the Minister of Education — with a dissembling plot to tax ordinary homeowners and blame school boards when the blame is entirely the minister's and the government's.

He's made that statement. At the first available opportunity we made every reasonable effort to bring the government to task, and they're adjourning until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. School trustees across this province are threatening to withdraw their budgets in defiance of this government because of this very serious and totally unjustified attack on school boards and ordinary homeowners, and the tax burdens that they'll have to bear this year. It's totally unreasonable for the House Leader to expect this chamber to pass a motion to adjourn until 10 o'clock, when we're faced with precisely that kind of an issue. I would ask the House Leader to take into consideration the very serious consequences of the Minister of Education's actions. He has virtually said to heck with the school boards. He's not only said to heck with them; he's said, "It's your fault, which is not true." It's not their fault at all. He claims that they could pare back their budgets when most of their budgets are built-in cost increases that they couldn't control no matter what they did, except for maybe 2 or 3 percent. The minister has made unfair and unsubstantiated remarks that he has to answer for in this chamber on behalf of elected school trustees across the province. It is a performance that out matches even the performance of the former Minister of Education, his predecessor, and I thought that was unimaginable. I thought the relationship between the elected education governments of this province with the provincial government was never worse under his predecessor. It's now worse. It's unfair, and it's a dishonourable approach to take towards elected officials in school districts across this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,please, hon. member. We must debate only the desirability or otherwise of adjourning to other than 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for bringing me to order. I don't see why the Minister of Education should not be held to account tonight, right now. I don't see why he has to scurry and argue in the halls instead of debating in this chamber, where the debate should be.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like some advice. On a point of order from the Premier, it would appear to me that the nature of the debate is a direct reflection on a vote which was taken in this House just a short time ago in regard to the Speaker's opinion that the matter which was raised by the member earlier today was not a matter of urgent public importance for debate, regardless of the attempt to tie it to a motion before the floor that member is directly entering into that kind of debate which was denied to him in the orderly nature of the business of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The decision of the Speaker was not whether or not the matter was urgent. The decision of the Speaker had to do with whether or not the matter was urgent enough to set aside the priority of government business. That is the decision that was made.

MR. HOWARD: Surely the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in discussing the time of adjournment, is entitled to discuss the advisability of proceeding to another time of adjournment for the purpose of dealing with an urgent and crucial matter. I think you have to find the point of order — and I put that politely — raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) as having no foundation at all.

MR. LAUK: This chamber is a responsible chamber of honourable elected members who have to deal with the business of this province, which includes the relationship with school boards and school trustees which have the solemn responsibility of caring for the education of our young people in communities across the province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the clock.

MR. LAUK: We're in the middle of a debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. My attention having been drawn to the clock, I now leave the chair.

Mr. Speaker left the chair at 6:09 p.m.