[ Page 5163 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5163

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1981

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 46, relating to closure of debate. I submit to Your Honour that last evening at the close of business the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) found a new way to institute closure of debate in this chamber, not using the formal procedure under standing order 46. In the process of that, I submit, he both subverted the rules and dragged Your Honour, regrettably, into a partisan decision with respect to closing off debate last night.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Under the rules of standing orders, Mr. Speaker shall rule on points of order submitted to the Speaker by any hon. member. Is Mr. Speaker going to make a ruling with respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)?

MR. SPEAKER: I think both the member now standing on his feet — and taking his seat, yes — and the member for Skeena who raised the point of order are very well aware of the rules of the House which, simply stated, say that when Mr. Speaker's attention is drawn to the clock by any member of this House, he simply leaves the chamber. That concludes the matter.

I think the hon. members are aware of the rules. The purpose of the Chair is not to teach the rules but to enforce them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect and with no further comment, I would draw you to your own remarks on page 760 of Hansard, July 13, 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, standing on standing order 35, Mr. Speaker. I carefully noted Mr. Speaker's ruling on my previous application under that standing order. With respect to the language used in the resolution itself presented to Your Honour, and although this matter has been dealt with in a preliminary way by the Speaker in terms of whether it was in order for presentation to the House, I resubmit the motion for presentation to the House.

Be it resolved that the House do now adjourn to debate such measures as are necessary to reduce the burden of school property taxes imposed by the provincial government. So as there is no prejudice to the position I am taking on behalf of all these taxpayers, I reiterate that the announcement of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), whose responsibility it is under the School Act to announce the minimum mill rate for all school districts.... This is really the first opportunity that this matter has been brought to the House's attention.

I point out to Mr. Speaker that the spirit of standing order 35(l) is really to allow for emergent situations to be dealt with by the chamber. Precipitous action is being threatened by trustees, not only in the school district of Vancouver but in Richmond and probably in other areas. It seems to me that the House should deal with this as quickly as possible by using the first available opportunity, which is now, to debate the issues.

I would ask the Speaker not to be too concerned about language in motions and the pro forma of resolutions that are presented to the Speaker. Standing order 35 historically has been there to give the House all opportunity to suspend the ordinary course of events in this chamber and to debate urgent matters of public importance. That is the primary goal of this Legislature in passing standing order 35. It should be the primary goal with respect to the Speaker to pay close attention to the substance of that being requested. and not pro forma. I ask Mr. Speaker to consider that.

In addition. the same urgency is here. The deadline for school districts to present their budgets is the end of this month, which is rapidly closing. An expression of opinion from all members of this Legislature on the Minister of Education's position should be sent out across the province so that people will know, N where everyone stands. That's why I make this request again of the Speaker to have this presented.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows, in reviewing standing order 35, that the matter on which he has embarked would only be in order before notices of motion or orders of the day are entered upon. His remarks, although I'm certain they are deemed important by the member himself, are out of order at this time.

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.

MR. LEGGATT: I listened with some interest to the Minister of Industry, and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) address himself to the question of the agricultural land reserve. After considerable musing he said that what the socialists were really after was a thing called zoning, and he conceived that to be something very terrible. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he's right. In fact, there is no reason at all why zoning should not apply to farmland as well as municipal land or any other land. In fact, the ALR is just a logical extension of planning. But what this government is against is very clear: planning in any form. They have a plan, and that plan is to destroy the ALR. Since the ALR came in they have done everything they can to destroy it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor.

MR. LEGGATT: I was in Ottawa at the time, but I remember one thing while I was in Ottawa that I was never prouder of any government in this country than I was of the one right here that brought in the agricultural land reserve. I can tell you that that feeling was universal across this country.

[ Page 5164 ]

As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, the plan is there, all right. The plan is to destroy the ALR. It was this government that put its hired hats on the Land Commission. It was this government that destroyed the ALR that way. It was this government, which talks about the rights of individuals, that took that appeal process and made it a political process rather than a non-political process.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, they've got a plan. Part of the plan of destruction lay, first of all, with politicizing it so that there was no real objectivity in terms of appeals from the Land Commission. Another part of the destruction is to arrow all the growth into the farmland area. That's clearly a plan. The Annacis crossing is a plan. If this government has any plans surely that's one of them: to bring more and more traffic to the edge of the farmland, more and more development on the edge of the farmland. The direct result is pressure to release farmland immediately. More and more pressure on the periphery clearly means the destruction of farmland in this province and in this lower mainland area. That's part of the plan. If it's not a plan, what are they doing it for? That plan clearly continues the erosion of the ALR.

The next serious erosion of farmland deals in highways. The Highways ministry is one of the major villains in eating up farmland by expropriating and widening highways all across the province. B.C. Hydro is the next villain on farmlands. Just fly over the province some time and see what is happening to this province in terms of farmland: it is Hydro right-of-way removing forests and farmland all across the province.

Now it has been said before, but it needs repeating, that there is no need whatsoever to remove farmland from the ALR for the purposes of residential housing and construction. The GVRD study clearly showed that there are 40,000 acres available now, and that will last well beyond the year 2000. This is a phony issue — all this pressure to remove land. In the constituency that I represent, in the constituency that my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) represents, there are vast areas of non-farmland available now for use in housing, but this government hasn't got the wit or the planning sense to see that this is where the new development must come. It must come in North Surrey; it must come all across the northern border of the Fraser River instead of the good agricultural land which must be preserved in the province. But that's the plan. If there's any planning it is to destroy farmland in the province of British Columbia.

One of the other things we can do is to look at some new arrangements. First of all, the idea that we shouldn't have increasing density in the lower mainland of British Columbia and that we shouldn't allow illegal suites in the lower mainland of British Columbia.... Again, there is ample land available now for all the housing we need beyond the year 2000. We just don't have the wit to do it, and this government certainly doesn't have the wit to do it.

What about the supply of vegetable products? We import very substantial amounts of what we consume, and we are still in the process of eroding our farmland. You know, some of us are old enough to have grown up in the Second World War. I want to make a proposal right now. We should be having victory gardens right now in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Everybody should be growing their own gardens. The vegetables are better. They can be naturally grown and are far more nutritious.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Rooftop farming — an excellent idea, Mr. Minister. I'd like to see you do something about rooftop farming. I would like to see your government make one positive suggestion to increase the supply of farm products for people in the lower mainland. Do something. Do one thing. What have you done? Do one thing, Mr. Minister. All this minister has done is erode the original planning of individual farm plots that the NDP brought in for urban dwellers to have their own little sites and their own little plants. You've destroyed that plan as well.

What we need is an intensive use of the agricultural land that is available to us, not an erosion of the land. There is a lot of agricultural land right here in the urban centres that we should be using, instead of black topping.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, the only person who is putting the farmer out of business in this province is this government, which is driving them to the wall. This government really doesn't believe in cooperative marketing; it never has and never will. It only believes in the free enterprise ethic. If you follow the free enterprise ethic there won't be a farmer left in the province of British Columbia. That's what's going to happen.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They've never had it better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development will have his opportunity to take his place in debate. At this point the member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the key problem with the ALR is a lack of originality and of any new ideas from this minister in terms of increasing farm production by intensively using the agricultural land now available, particularly in the lower mainland and in every backyard and roof-top. That is lacking, because this government has run out of ideas. It never really had any. It was just a coalition to try to keep the socialists out of power. Since they formed government they haven't had a single new idea. In the agricultural area, what original thinking has gone on? Certainly in areas such as victory gardens, intensive planning....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, victory gardens. What's the matter with the name "victory gardens"? Call it anything you like, but it happens to be an idea that this minister shouldn't scoff at, because he's simply presiding over the destruction of the rest of the farmland in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was very interested in listening to the last speaker, because he has confirmed what I've known and have told this chamber all along. The ALR was not brought in to preserve agricultural land. It was brought in by the socialists as a central planning tool. It was brought in to take away the rights of individuals to own farmland. That member has reconfirmed it, along with other members from the socialist hordes over there who have stood on their feet repeatedly and said that there should be no private ownership

[ Page 5165 ]

of land in this province. Now it all unfolds that we have the new boy from Ottawa, who I thought would come out here and absolve himself of the socialist ideas of the group he joined, and here he stands and confirms exactly what we've said. That group over there is not interested in preserving farmland per se; that group over there, if they ever get the power — God help us if they do — would do all the planning, take away all the individual rights and tell the people: "You move here and you move there." What they would be saying to the individual is: "You're stupid. You don't know what you're doing. We as a centralist, socialist government will do all the planning for you. We will own all the land and you shall become serfs in your own land, the same as they do in Russia." You may think I'm fooling but I'm dead serious. That is why we had to oppose the Land Commission Act in its original form. There were no rights in it for any individual. Nobody had the right to appeal even to the courts. Common law was taken out of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You weren't here, my friend. Have you ever looked at the original act as it was brought in? Had it not been for the opposition put up by us when we were in opposition, they would have abrogated all of the common rights of everybody in this province. I'll tell you, it's a very serious matter and we took it as a very serious matter. Now that new boy over there who came from Ottawa stands up and really tells us the truth this morning.

I want to confirm again for this chamber and for all the people in British Columbia that the socialists brought in the Land Commission Act as a central planning tool so they could plan for everybody in the province, take away everybody's right to do anything they wanted to with their own land, and eventually do away with the private ownership of land in this province, as has been confirmed by many of their members then and again this year in this chamber.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for the Minister of Agriculture, who stands up and attempts to defend the agricultural land reserve and is getting so much help from all his colleagues. The member who just sat down repeated the same remarks he made in this House back in 1973.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're still true today.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, he still believes it. He somehow thinks that planning is going to take away the rights of individuals. Planning is an accepted thing. This is the plan for the Lower mainland of British Columbia, put out by the regional districts there. My own area is passing community plans all the time. Why not plan for agriculture, for food production? That is probably far more important than any of the other things that we're making plans for.

We've heard from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is not in the House at the moment. I wish that member would read the legislation before he gets up and speaks. He doesn't even know what's provided under the legislation. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said that the land reserve was a total mess, and he talked about the need for housing and having to build on agricultural land.

The lower mainland development objectives are to preserve farmland, to preserve the floodplain and other hazardous areas and so on. On that basis — I hate to repeat myself in this House, but I think I must, because apparently people haven't heard what I've said — the four lower mainland regional districts have gotten together and planned for housing, based on the present population growth to, I think, the year 2001. There is enough land classed as urban, urban reserve and rural residential in those four regional districts to provide the housing needs, and there's enough for industry too. The minister agrees: he is aware of the plans. I'm talking specifically about housing, because that was the point raised by the member for Dewdney. There is enough land there to provide for housing needs, with enough left over, in fact, already classed as urban and rural residential, at the present population growth rate to provide housing to the year 2020.

Yet we have people get up — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for one, and the member for Dewdney — and tell us that we've got to take the agricultural land out of the reserve because people have to have a place to live.

That's a myth. The planning people in the regional districts of the lower mainland have proved it's a myth. What needs to be done is that governments get on their horses and get something done about getting that land released and getting it serviced so it is available and ready as housing needs require. That's what the regional governments are doing, and that's what the provincial government needs to give them assistance in doing.

In his remarks yesterday afternoon the minister indicated that I thought the land reserve was etched in stone. I was quoting his remarks that he was going to etch it in stone. I don't think it will ever be etched in stone. I think some changes are going to have to be made from time to time. I have done nothing but compliment the minister on making money available for the fine-tuning. It was long overdue. It isn't enough, but that process has started and that's good. For people to indicate that the people on this side of the House want that to stay exactly as it is is absolutely misleading. Have you heard any real complaints from this side of the House on the recommendations of the Land Commission, hand-picked as it was? The member who just spoke used a very good term to describe that commission. But, you know, in your attempt to let people who would appear credible, Mr. Minister, you've got people who were credible, who had a dedication to the land reserve. Those commissioners have made recommendations and I haven't questioned those recommendations.

I've been concerned at the amount of land going out compared to the amount of land going in, because the cabinet seemed quite prepared to accept the recommendations from the commission relative to the Langley area and relative to the Sooke and Esquimalt areas and eventually, hopefully, in my own area, where they're fine-tuning to take land out of the reserve. The cabinet seems very reluctant to accept the Land Commission's recommendations to put land into the reserve — for example, the takeover of the harbour lands, which are in the reserve. The cabinet seems very reluctant to accept the dedication of the Stikine valley, which has been asked for by the Land Commission. Every farm organization in the Stikine valley has asked to have that put in the reserve.

Certainly fine-tuning is something that has to take place. It was something that was set up and ready to go, and it was delayed for two or three years by this government. It's now going and that's fine. We didn't even complain when the Minister of Municipal Affairs made windfall profits from a

[ Page 5166 ]

recommendation of the Land Commission. We didn't complain about that because the Land Commission recommended that. We take the stand on this side of the House that those kinds of decisions, which are very sensitive decisions because they mean a lot of dollars to individuals, have to be made by people who do it on a scientific basis. That's why we object to the move by this government to put that decision-making into the political arena.

Now the minister has said there was no appeal. There was no appeal from a unanimous decision. Surely a unanimous decision of a duly appointed body of people who are knowledgeable about land and have expertise at hand to provide them with advice should stand. They could appeal if they could get their regional or local governments to support them, or if they could get two people who were on the Land Commission to support them. They had a form of appeal. The only appeal that this government has brought in now is a political appeal that is right out of the realm of any scientific approach. It's a politically partisan thing and it's been proven by the examples that have been cited in this House many times. You talked about the limited amount you have removed, the percentage, and that's true. But if you look at that percentage and the acres you have removed, they are all involved in some kind of political relationship with that government. That's the major areas involved. I'm talking about Gloucester and I'm talking about the so-called Spetifore property — the minister prefers to call it the Delta property. But those have political implications, Mr. Chairman.

In speaking of the so-called Spetifore property, I would like to ask the minister if he has decided yet what the status of that land is. Is it in the reserve or is it out of the reserve? He and I have had a difference of opinion on that one, and he has indicated that if it wasn't out of the reserve he would see that it was. I'm wondering whether or not he has decided, Of course, I think the Chairman realizes what I'm talking about, because that order-in-council set certain specifications, certain provisos as to what would happen if that land came out. It was subject to housing and subject to the park and those things are now not possible, they're not going to happen. In my opinion — and not just mine, but in the opinion of legal people that I have discussed it with — the order is null and void. I would like the minister to respond to that particular statement.

The minister indicated, relative to the Windermere property, that he, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) had done a lot of work to ensure that that land was protected. That's very interesting, because I have here a letter signed by one James J. Hewitt to Dr. Mills Clarke, the chairman of the Land Commission. It's dated September 11, and he's replying to a letter from Dr. Clarke of September 9 regarding the fact that they'd been asked to prepare an order-in-council for the Windermere property. They had asked how much it was to include and what sort of protective measures were to be built into that order- in-council. This brings me to your second question. The minister says in the second paragraph: "The reclamation provisions of section 10 of the Mining Regulation Act are to apply to any extraction of sand and gravel." That's a section that's never been used, Mr. Chairman. "The Environment and Land Use Committee is recommending that such regulations be done independently of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. That is to say, no reference to conditions under the Agricultural Land Commission Act is intended, " Yet he stands up and tells us what great care he was taking to ensure that that land would be protected. No wonder the Land Commission refused to grant the soil removal permit in the face of that kind of thing.

The Land Commission Act, as we all know, was brought in under a great deal of stress. It was mentioned that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) had taken part in the demonstration that occurred when that bill was before the Legislature. There were two demonstrations out there when that act was being discussed. There was a very major and highly financed demonstration opposing the bill. There was another demonstration there too, Mr. Chairman. There was a demonstration of a few very dedicated people who realized what the government of the day was trying to accomplish and realized the need for it. They were bona fide farmers. I'm proud to say that I was one of those people who were marching in opposition to the other march when that bill was being discussed. It was much-needed legislation. It was long overdue. It was deliberately misunderstood by many people, I think. It was brought in because we were in desperate need of protecting out farmland. Along with that, after the act had been instituted, came the companion piece of legislation that made the farmers recognize and accept the Land Commission and the land reserve for what they really were. That was the farm income assurance program. The ministers talked about national justice, how hard the farmers have been hit and how we can't ask them not to sell their land to non-residents because they've already been so badly hit. The Farm Income Assurance Act was the piece of legislation that said to the farmers: "Okay, you're being asked to preserve this natural heritage for future generations. In return for that, we as citizens of British Columbia have a social obligation to ensure that you have a viable return for your efforts and a fair return in compensation for preserving that agricultural land."

That program came under terrific stress from this government and its ministers. They were unable to destroy it, but they have certainly diluted it. I have had many delegations, letters and individuals come to me with complaints as to what's happening with the farm income assurance program. One of the things, of course, is the calculation of cost. It has been whittled and chopped. The capital costs particularly have been reduced. It's been removed from commodities that are involved in national schemes. They don't have an opportunity to participate. In general, its meaning and original intent have been drastically curtailed. Apart from that, the funds — and that is what we are talking about here, the dollars — have been reduced to the point where it is no longer a meaningful program.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister seems to have a great concern that the farm community is going to rip off the taxpayers. I don't know if that is the whole concept of this government. It would seem that that may be the concept. The only understanding or grasp they have of any reason for doing anything is that you are trying to rip something off.

The limits program on the apple growers is an example. If you are going to have limits.... Maybe you have to have limits on millions of pounds or production — and I'm not even sure you have to do that. You are encouraging people to become larger, to become more viable, and yet you put limits on the kind of returns they can get. But when you put limits not only on the tonnage but also on the dollars, then you are really creating a problem for those people.

[ Page 5167 ]

This year is an outstanding example as far as the apple crop goes, because this year it would appear that the pool price, the return from the marketplace to the farmer, is going to be something like 5 to 6 cents a pound. Yet under farm income assurance, whittled back as it is, the cost per pound is 11.9 cents. Now 1 cent of that goes to pay the premiums, so you are looking at 11 cents net from farm income assurance, That means that the farmer is out of pocket — and I mean out of pocket — 5 to 6 cents a pound this year. Now that doesn't change, whether you grow 100 pounds, 1,000 pounds or 500,000 pounds; you still have that money out of pocket; you've borrowed it. And when you start putting limits on, it's going to mean that 50 percent of those apple growers are going to be affected this year. That's approximately 200 growers who are not going to receive an adequate return from farm income assurance to even cover their out-of-pocket costs.

Now I've read the most recent news release the minister has put out. You know, he's got this money going out right away because they need it so badly. It's not going to be enough money as long as those limits are on there, Mr. Minister. If you have to have limits on pounds, maybe I could buy that; but if you're also going to put it on dollars, that's double trouble for the farmer, and it's going to mean that the apple growers are going to be faced with carrying loans at high interest rates just to cover their costs of production during the last year.

I would suggest that the minister needs to rethink his attitude on farm income assurance. It's not something just to level out the humps and hollows; it's that, but it's far more than that. That program was designed to ensure that the farmer would have a fair return for his labour and his efforts, in return for the fact that he could no longer use his land as a pension plan. The farmer is happy with that arrangement, but he wants that program to remain the viable kind of program that it started out to be, and this minister is eroding it.

I mentioned that he has failed to include enough dollars in the budget to cover it. It's interesting to note — and I would like some explanation as to why — there was no money provided for the 1979 apple crop until the very end of the fiscal year. The growers had put their money in the pot; they'd sent dollars and a promissory note to cover their share of the premiums; but those premiums couldn't be paid because there was no money in the pot from the government. As I understand it, that came on the very last day of March 1980. I would like to know whether that was charged to the 1980 budget or the 1980-81 budget. That was a fair chunk of money that went out to the apple growers for the 1979 crop, and I understand that is being paid out now or has been paid. If it came out of last year's budget, why was it so badly delayed? Why was it not made available until March 31? Why did those growers have to wait until the end of March 1980 for the farm income assurance for their 1979 apple crop? And why the delay on the greenhouse crops for farm income assurance, with negotiations dragging on and on? Was it because this minister gave in so readily to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) when he was asked to cut back on his budget for 1980-81? Was it because the estimates which we discussed in this House last year were not lived up to, were not available? Was it because that funding was cut back? Was that the reason for the delay in the greenhouse program?

There's been one road-block after another in negotiating that program. As soon as April 1 came along, bang, it was negotiated just like that. Was it because there was no money available that that program was so delayed? Delays like that cost farmers money. They have to keep on producing, buying their seed and fertilizer and paying their power bills, energy costs and labour costs. When this ministry drags its feet and refuses to negotiate in good faith, then we're looking at something like $1.5 million — that's my understanding of that program's cost for those two years — that should have been paid out of the previous year's budget. Now it's going to come out of the funds that we're talking about this year.

The 1980 beef program was a big one: $6.5 million. It theoretically should have been paid before the end of the fiscal year, out of last year's budget. How much of that was paid? Very little, I understand. Maybe $1 million out of that went out of last year's budget, maybe a little more. We're looking at maybe $5 million to pay for the 1980 program coming out of this year's budget.

I'm reminded of what happened back in 1976 with the same plan. We were changing government and that government over there was trying to see how many debts they could run up, how many dollars they could spend before the end of March to make it look like there was a really big deficit created by the New Democratic party. Going back to Hansard for April 7, 1976, I note that that year something between $15 million and $20 million was paid for beef prior to the end of March to cover the current year — payments that weren't even due until after the end of March — to build up that so-called deficit for 1975-76. Yet here we are this year with a very small portion of that beef program paid in the last fiscal year — again a charge on this year's estimates.

Why the delay in negotiations for processing vegetables? They should have been under farm income assurance long ago. Sheep, strawberries — they all should have been in place, but somehow the government manages to drag its feet so these programs aren't available to the farmer. That minister talks about natural justice. Natural justice would be to ensure that these programs are in place to ensure a viable income to farmers. No. he doesn't. He and his ministry continue to drag their feet on those programs. Why? There's only one conclusion. and that is that there was no money there. He simply gave in to the Minister of Finance and said: "Okay, I won't spend my budget. I'll cut back seven billion dollars or so. I won't spend it, and we'll take it out of the farmers' hide." And that's what he's been doing — taking it out of the farmers hide. They know it, How do you think I get this information if they don't know it?

We saw a great headline in the Province today. This minister has been doing, it for a long time. My understanding is that be hired a special consultant to try to prop up his sagging image. In fact. he's taken to buying full-page ads in Country Life at the taxpayers' expense. It's a full-page ad talking about what a great guy the minister is and all the things he's doing for the farmers.

If that minister would take the time and effort to get the funds that are required, he could have a great image with the farmers. If he would simply ensure that that farm income assurance program lived up to its original idea.... That's really all that the farmers are asking. Because he has failed to do that, we have continuing problems with all the other programs, nickelling and diming here and there.

Before I leave farm income assurance, though, I have to make one more plea to that minister. This is a double plea. It's a plea made as a woman member of this Legislature, and it's a plea made for the farming community. One of the major things basically wrong with the farm income assurance pro-

[ Page 5168 ]

gram is that if two men form a partnership, they can claim as two separate entities under the farm income assurance program.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sure the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) will want to continue after I respond to some of the questions raised by herself and by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). In regard to some of the statements he made, I'd like to respond. He said we were against planning in any form, with regard to agriculture. I would just like to say for the record that one of the major programs in my ministry is ARDSA, which was a five year plan and a $30 million commitment by this government and a $30 million commitment by the federal government to develop a strategy and a plan and to develop programs to improve the productivity of our farm community. I can say to the member for Cowichan-Malahat that it is working very well.

In regard to the other quote made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, he mentioned "the hired hacks" on the Agricultural Land Commission. I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat repeated the comment. Let me give you some of those "hired hacks'" backgrounds, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Mills Clarke, chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission and appointed by myself, has 30 years-plus in the agricultural research sector of the Department of Agriculture for Canada and is head of the Agassiz research station. He is a man who has a number of degrees, and he is very well qualified. He is, I think, very well respected and recognized by the agricultural community of this province and by agriculturists across Canada. A "hired hack" — I say not. I say I'm embarrassed by the comments that were made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat and the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

Ian Paton is an agrologist and former president of the Institute of Agrologists. As a matter of fact, he is the immediate past-president; he just completed his term. He is a man who has a degree and who has stature in the agricultural community of this province. Mr. Joe Rogers is a man who has been instrumental in designing and carrying out a plan for the cattle industry of this province. He is well respected in that industry and a man who has provided great leadership. I think the results of his endeavours, and of the people who work with him, will be seen over the coming years in the fact that British Columbia's cattle industry will be able to expand and grow, and we'll become more self-sufficient in beef production in this province. Eli Framst is a man from the Peace River country, former chairman of the regional district in the Peace River country. Hired hacks? No, I don't think so. These men were picked for their recognition by the industry, and as people who have dedicated themselves to British Columbia and the agriculture industry of British Columbia. Art Sutcliffe from Creston is a man who has farmed in Creston, and a man who has been a moving force with Kootenay Dehydrators Ltd. in Creston, which has had some difficult times. But Mr. Sutcliffe has stuck with it, and through his dedication to the community of Creston and the agricultural community in that area he, with his efforts, has brought forward a fairly successful dehy-processing plant in that area. No, they aren't "political hired hacks" as the opposition would like to state. These people were picked for their expertise and dedication to their jobs.

I think the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) recognizes — since he was a former cabinet minister in the NDP administration — that these commissioners are appointed by order-in-council. He'd fully recognize that when he was in government he was party to appointments to the Agricultural Land Commission. I assume that he, in the same way as I have acted, picked them for their expertise in the job they were about to carry out as land commissioners. Or do we raise the question with him: did he make political decisions? That's the way he would lead you to think from the comments he's just made across the floor.

To move on, the member for Coquitlam-Moody talked about victory gardens. Over a period of years we have made allotment gardens available to people who wish to use them. We also have a good system whereby people who have home gardens.... And I heartily recommend to anybody that it's enjoyment and recreation to have a small garden in your backyard if you are fortunate enough to have property and some land which you can develop, however small, but also to have the pleasure of producing some of your own foodstuffs. We have staff members who are ready, willing and able to respond to questions from home gardeners, and we have an arrangement with the University of British Columbia whereby people can phone in on a type of hotline and pose questions with regard to their gardens and food production. What is the best fertilizer? What problems are there with pesticides, etc.? Those things are available to assist that "home gardener," whether he's operating a victory garden, an allotment garden or whatever.

In regard to the question from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) concerning the Delta property, Madam Member, the Delta property, the one that's been of such great concern is, in my opinion, out of the agricultural land reserve. The order-in-council took it out of the agricultural land reserve. The decision made by the GVRD is one of local zoning, and in their wisdom they have determined that that land should remain in their liveable regional plan — I think that's what they call it — as rural or agricultural. That's their decision. They are a local government, and they have the right to make that determination. It's local planning and local zoning. With regard to the agricultural land reserve, it is excluded from that designation.

With regard to the Wenger property in the East Kootenays, the member has again done some selective reading out of a letter of September 11. She indicates, by looking at the second paragraph, that we didn't include the Agricultural Land Commission. In the third paragraph it says:

"Hence the necessary order-in-council should be drafted to refer to the proposed conditional use of the 22, plus or minus, acres of land. No reference to detailed reclamation conditions would appear necessary in light of legal advice. Instead, direct regulation of any potential extraction under the provisions of the Mining Regulation Act would be done."

Then it goes on to talk about a letter of September 9. I'd like to read from that letter which went to the chief inspector of mines with regard to this property:

"It is the wish of cabinet that the development be regulated carefully. To accomplish this, several options were considered. The preferred option, rather than attaching conditions to the cabinet approval, pursuant to the Agricultural Commission Act, is to have any gravel pit development regulated pursuant to section 10 of the Mining Regulation Act. Accordingly, the request is being referred to you, as section 10(17) conveys authority to you in these matters.

[ Page 5169 ]

"As secretary of the Environment and Land Use Committee, I am instructed to bring the wishes of the Environment and Land Use Committee regarding development of this parcel to your attention. Conditions which the Environment and Land Use Committee would like to see applied to any eventual development are:

"Suitable buffering for adjacent properties;

"Suitable staging of gravel extraction and reclamation dust control;

"Suitable contours to allow future agricultural use;

"Full conservation of topsoil, ensuring that the finished grade after possible mining would be approximately at or above the level of the highway;

"Ensuring that the pit operation be visually screened from the highway. Adequate bonding to ensure this is carried out;

"Ensuring that revegetation and other reclamation practices be provided for;

"Design plans showing how the proposed finished contours relate to those adjacent properties."

And finally, Mr. Chairman:

"No doubt you will be assisted by either regional officials or, if appropriate, the headquarters advisory committee on reclamation. In either case, the Environment and Land Use Committee asks that the Agricultural Land Commission be afforded the opportunity for involvement in the process of setting reclamation standards and monitoring both development and reclamation."

Mr. Chairman, that was sent out by the secretary to ELUC. The members of the committee were, as I said before, myself, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), in whose riding this was taking place and who has been accused time and time again, both in the press and by those members opposite, of doing something underhanded and shoddy. Yet he is party to this decision that puts conditions on that particular piece of property. They are probably the strictest conditions to ensure proper development of the property and then finally to bring it back into agricultural use. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Clarke and to Mr. McDonald of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

The point I really make is that as politicians we tend to take advantage of situations. It's unfortunate that some politicians — I'll be quite frank — will stoop to a position where they attack an individual and are bent on character assassination, when the individual they are accusing of doing something underhanded or wrong is one of the individuals who has been very firm in his commitment to the preservation of agricultural land, to ensure that that property was developed in a way that it could be used for future food production. What happened was that the Land Commission and reclamation people could not come up with a plan that would make it economically feasible to extract the gravel and then put it into agricultural production. Hence the proposal failed. I just want it on the record that I would be very pleased if those members who constantly attack people on this side of the House would read the whole story, rather than do a little bit of selective reading.

In regard to the farm income assurance program, Madam Member knows full well that a year or so ago a memorandum of understanding was signed by the Federation of Agriculture and myself, in looking at the second generation of farm income assurance programs. It was signed and agreed to through consultation. There was nothing heavy-handed. I think I'm fairly confident in saying that those negotiations went very well.

I also tell the member something she's also aware of but neglects to comment on, The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) from this government agreed to an allocation of a $10 million reserve fund for farm income assurance in 1980. It was placed in that fund to give us some backup support so we could draw on that fund if we ran into a situation where there is a tremendous depression in the present time; there is a contract in effect at the present time. I believe you mentioned in your remarks that it wasn’t in effect.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat mentions that the government is dragging its feet, or the ministry is dragging its feet, with regard to renegotiating farm income assurance contracts. Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has entered into those contracts as a partner with the commodity group. There are two parties to the contract: the commodity group and my ministry. We do this and we arrive at these final contracts through consultation. We aren't dragging our feet on those contracts that are not in force at the present time; it's a matter of on-going discussions to finally arrive at a fairly accurate cost-of-production formula and one that would be put into place. So we're not dragging our feet, because we need that other party, which is the commodity group, to sit down and to review what the costs are and to make a final determination before it's put into place.

The last comment, Mr. Chairman, is the full page in Country Life. I think she mentioned that I'd hired a consultant to improve my image. I didn't see that in the Province newspaper; I'll have to look it up. However, the full page in Country Life relates to an explanation of the services of the ministry and, yes, I guess in a small corner of that, if I'm not mistaken, I have a small picture of myself and maybe a little foreword to the main part of the article. But the member for Cowichan-Malahat knows that my staff get more coverage and more picture space than I do, because what we're really trying to say to the farm community through Country Life — in a paid ad, I may mention — is that here are the men and women that work for you in the field of agriculture. Here is the individual responsible for our financial programs, our marketing and economics program and our field operations. Here they are, here is their responsibility, here is where they are located, and we want you to know who those people are in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that work for you, the farmer.

That's communication. Mr. Chairman, and I'm all for it. I don't mind getting my small picture up on the top left-hand corner of that article, but if it upsets the member, I'll even go so far as to exclude my picture and leave it all to the staff, if that would satisfy them. I'm not selling myself. What we're attempting to do is to communicate with the agricultural community so they know what services we have available to them. In that way we will continue to see an expansion of the agricultural community in this province, because the beginning farmer or the farmer who wants to be updated, who wants to know the latest technology, can make a contact with the proper official in my ministry to get the latest information. I think that's a good and positive move, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess it's all in the point of view. The minister talks about consultation with

[ Page 5170 ]

the farm community relative to the new programs or the renegotiation of contracts, but if there is no agreement or no move to come to reasonable terms by the government, as far as I'm concerned and as far as many of the consumer groups are concerned, that amounts to dragging your feet. Certainly that seems to me where the government is as far as their negotiation of the farm income assurance programs — and I stand corrected on the strawberry program; that was my error.

When the red light came on I was about to speak to the minister about the limits which he has put on partnerships relative to husband and wife teams. It seems to me that in the agricultural industry there is no truer partnership than the husband and wife who jointly operate a family farm. When the minister says to that woman, "No, I'm sorry, you cannot be considered as a partner for the receipt of farm income assurance, we will only consider you as one unit," then I think that's being most unfair to the woman of this province. I guess that minister has never really worked or been on a farm. Of course, I speak as a farm wife who knows what's it's all about, who knows the kind of load that a farm wife carries in conjunction with her husband. Certainly that's a true partnership in the truest sense of the word, and there is no reason why that woman's work should not be recognized and allowed two units of return under the farm income assurance program. What the minister is doing is contributing toward avoidance of or circumventing the law.

People will simply not enter into matrimony. They'll live together commonlaw in order to be able to accommodate that kind of arrangement, or they will falsify records. The same is true of the limits with the apple growers. If the minister is not prepared to recognize the need to remove those dollar limits, then there are going to be all kinds of people forced into becoming benders of the law, because it is quite possible to simply register another name. Then we're going to have a great police force, and we're going to turn up some scandal where there is a dog collecting farm income insurance, and the whole program is going to be discredited. That minister, by his tactics of limits and his refusal to recognize the farm wife as a full partner, is driving people into that kind of bending of the law. I certainly object to that, Mr. Chairman.

I want to turn to another topic which I've discussed with the minister before. It simply doesn't go away, and that's the problem related to the sale of raw milk. The minister indicated last year that he wasn't going to police every sale over the back fence, and certainly his policy seems to continue to be just that. He seems to have taken revenge on my constituency, because we've had two raw milk dairies closed down in that area. Yet I was in his constituency not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, and my host took me to pick up milk for his family from a raw milk dairy in the minister's constituency — who happens to be a good supporter of his, incidentally. My host certainly was not a supporter of yours, but he got his milk from someone who was a supporter of yours. There we see a raw milk dairy operating openly — three or four fridges on the back porch, prices posted, big business going strong supplying all of that little community of Cawston that I happened to be visiting. There's nothing happening to that dairy, Mr. Chairman, but in my constituency two dairies closed down.

Every time I raise this, people say: "Well, you know we can't have raw milk, because it's hazardous." The point I'm trying to make — and it seems to escape people — is that we're having raw milk, and it's far more hazardous to have raw milk without regulation, without inspection, without any kind of proviso than it is to have it under the legislation. All I'm asking for is to make it possible for people to sell raw milk legally. Again he's forcing people to bend the law forcing them into court, Mr. Chairman.

I've had quite a time with the one dairy that's been closed down. She's a very adamant woman. She's bound she's going to just turn every stone, and she phones me two or three times a week. So I start giving her advice as to what she can do. And I'm glad the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is in, because I suggested that she might write to him. I suggested that he was anxious to make a good fellow of himself, and so she wrote to him. She'd written to the minister. She had gone to the cabinet meeting when it was in Duncan, and the Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I believe, had assured her that there would be a hearing. She's gone to the ombudsman, and she went to the member for Omineca. She wrote him, and on March 30 he wrote her a letter. He said: "Dear Mrs. Robson: Thank you for your letter of March 24. Please accept my apologies for the problems which you have experienced. I will immediately speak to my colleagues regarding the matter and again will be in touch with you." Yes, she heard from him again on April 3. He's a fast worker, that fellow. "Dear Mrs. Robson: Further to my letter of March 30, 1981, regarding your raw milk problem, I have now spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of Health and am told that their staffs are now planning for a public meeting to be held in Cobble Hill in the near future. I'm sure you will soon be contacted."

Well, when I got home last night my phone was ringing. It was Mrs. Robson. She had a letter from the minister. Do you know what he wanted? He wanted her and Mr. Kingscote, the other dairyman, to come down to his office and meet with the officials of his ministry and the Ministry of Health to discuss the matter and be prepared to answer questions, and perhaps some of these officials in the ministry would be able to explain to her the hazards of raw milk. Really, Mr. Chairman! The member for Omineca gets a promise for a public hearing, and then the minister wants them to come down and meet in private in his office.

It's time that that minister took some action one way or the other. He's either going to have to close down every raw milk dairy in this province, or he's going to have to ensure that raw milk production is legalized, regulated, controlled and safeguarded. We are going to have some kind of problem resulting from raw milk if those regulations and controls aren't in place. Until the minister is prepared to take that kind of action, we're going to continue to have this harassment of people who are trying to sell raw milk. Doctors recommend and prescribe raw milk, particularly raw goat's milk. The Robsons have dairy cows, but goat's milk is just as illegal and goat's milk is required by many infants who can't digest cow's milk. There are many, many people with herds of goats who are selling goat's milk — not pasteurized, not regulated or controlled in any way. Hopefully, they're conscientious, knowledgeable people taking the right precautions. Fortunately, up to this point in time they apparently have been. But how long can we trust to chance? How long can we let this thing go on? The minister is going to have to take a stand. Just to say that he's not going to police every sale over the back fence is certainly not good enough.

I have some questions regarding staffing to discuss with him. I think perhaps I'll leave it at that for now.

[ Page 5171 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, again going back over the comments that were raised, the member talks about farm income assurance and the fact that a husband and wife should be treated as two separate individuals or partners in the business. We insure the business enterprise. We aren't moving under farm income assurance to enhance the income of individuals, but we are looking at assisting or insuring the business enterprise. If it happens to be a husband and wife enterprise, a single family unit, then it is covered on that basis. If you are indicating that a husband and wife will break up the farm and live common-law as a result of not receiving Benefits under farm income assurance. I'd suggest that's a little far-fetched. I think for the benefit involved, out of the total picture, it would be a small return for somebody who determined he wanted to break up a family relationship just to get a cheque from the government. I'm sure every farmer in this province would find some humour in your remarks about what could happen in regard to common-law relationships and husbands and wives splitting up farm operations.

The interesting thing is that when the farm income assurance program was brought in by the NDP government and was administered in 1974 and 1975, they didn't treat them as individuals. They brought it in as an economic unit, a family unit. It wasn't until after some concern was expressed in regard to two families living on a farm in two residences and participating as partners that some changes were made. The administration that brought it in and dealt with it and is now being so critical is basically critical of its own policy of the day in which they did not recognize husband and wife as separate individuals.

Now, Madam Member, we move to raw milk. I guess I have to pose a question to you. I gather from your remarks that you are in support of the sale of raw milk in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: Under regulation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member nods her head and says: "Under regulation."

It's been a policy of government for the past 20 years, I believe, that we do not encourage the sale of raw milk. That policy was supported from 1972 to 1975 by the NDP government of the day. Now the member is standing up and making a case that we should allow and support the sale of raw milk, and in effect she is going right back and attacking the policy that her party endorsed — and rightly so — between 1972 and 1975, dealing with the Kingscote and Robson issue and the public meeting that was talked about.

Yes, I've heard from the parties involved that the Premier of the province and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) indicated at a meeting that it would seem reasonable to have a public meeting to discuss the issue of raw milk. As Minister of Agriculture and Food, I received a report from the ombudsman. Mrs. Robson, I believe, or Kingscote or both applied for a hearing or some decision by the ombudsman's office. The ombudsman has said to me that he feels a hearing by the minister would be in order. Under a section of the Milk Industry Act, I have that responsibility. We have indicated to the Robsons and the Kingscotes that we are prepared to set up a hearing at their convenience. I believe a letter has gone out. The date will be set and they will come and state their case. We will be able to make some determination at that time. Madam Member, I would say a public meeting is not forgone by that. We have had the ombudsman report and attempted to respond by holding a hearing in the minister's office. If there's a need for a public information meeting, that certainly may be the case and should be proceeded with so the people out there understand some of the ramifications of the sale or the encouragement of the sale of raw milk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read to you from a very well titled report called the Morbidity and Mortality  Weekly Report. It comes from the United States. There is a section in their March 6, 1981 report called "Raw-Milk-Associated Illness," which deals with the raw milk issue for several pages. It even gives some statistics with regard to the concerns they have and the evidence they have of illness and death caused by raw milk. Let me quote the last paragraph:

"Present technology cannot produce raw milk (including that listed as certified) that can be assured to be free of pathogens: only with pasteurization is there this assurance. The U.S. Animal Health Association, the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, the Conference of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the House of Delegates of the American Veterinary Medical Association have adopted policy statements that milk for human consumption should be pasteurized."

The medical health officers of the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association both take that stance as well.

[W. Davidson in the chair.]

Madam Member, we can go along and look at the situation as it exists today, which is really that if a person wants to drink raw milk, we aren't going to harass them. But I would suggest to you that the policy has been in place for a number of years — one which I concur in — that we are not going to encourage the sale of raw milk. Louis Pasteur brought pasteurization a number of years ago to assist and protect individuals from the problems that can be associated with raw milk. We only respond in instances where there have been complaints with regard to raw milk sales in certain areas. We don't go out harassing those people who wish to take that risk. In my opinion it is a risk. At the same time, when we get a complaint we do investigate it.

Madam Member, with the amount of support for the pasteurization of milk, the type of associations, committees and government officials that feel very strongly with regard to raw milk and the problems that can result from its use, I would say that I'm not prepared to change my position. I think the evidence is fairly clear: to avoid any serious illness, people should should think twice before they use raw milk.

MR. KING: I wanted to raise once again with the minister the case of the Bibergers in Salmon Arm. We've been through all this before, Mr. Chairman, so I'm not going to recount all the history of it. But I do want to say how disappointed I was with the minister's response to the overtures made to him for compensation for the hogs that were purchased from the government farm at Tranquille.

After attempting every conceivable method I could think of to persuade the minister and his staff that this was a valid claim for some compensation from the ministry, I was finally turned down after the minister indicated last year in the Legislature that his ministry had, as I believe he put it, "fumbled the ball." Through the discussions that were held in the Legislature and in the minister's office, there was never

[ Page 5172 ]

any question raised as to whether the pigs were infected when they were purchased. That was agreed; it's one thing to have hard legal-style evidence, but the minister never questioned that. In the final analysis, when the claim was put to him he then retreated to a position of saying: "Well, there's no positive proof that the pigs were infected when they were obtained from the farm." That was disappointing.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman — I can't use the word "deceitful" in the Legislature — in my view it was certainly a bit of bad faith. That had never been called into question in all the discussions that had gone on. It seemed to me that the minister resorted to that as a last refuge for refusing to pay compensation to these people who, I believe, in good conscience deserved better treatment from the Ministry of Agriculture. As I indicated to him, I did not take a position on what that level of compensation should be, but I felt it would have been fair and it would have been the responsible thing to do to set up arbitration — one person or three, whichever the minister preferred — and let them hear the facts and make a decision as to whether or not there should be compensation at all, and if so, what that level of compensation should be. I think the minister knows in his heart that that would have been the responsible and the fair thing to do.

One of the things that strikes me is that cabinet ministers tend sometimes to isolate themselves from the community. Certainly the minister has a responsibility to protect the public interest as he sees it, vis-à-vis taxpayers' expenditures. But I think that a telling question that might be asked in balancing that obligation against the social responsibility is: what would the people of British Columbia really say if they were a party to these discussions, if they had the evidence before them that the minister has on his desk with respect to this specific case? In my view it would be a resounding affirmation for compensating these honest farmers who were shafted by the Ministry of Agriculture. The taxpayers would say: "Look, the claim is small, but it's a valid claim, and while we want our tax dollars expended prudently and wisely, we don't want to gouge our fellow citizens in order to protect the integrity of our tax dollars."

The minister, for some unknown reason of his own, Mr. Chairman, has just refused to say.... Well, if he can't agree himself, at least put it out to an independent third party so that they can weigh the evidence, hear the representations from both parties, and let the chips fall where they may. The taxpayers of the province of British Columbia would welcome that kind of response from the government. That's the honest, up-front kind of thing to do, and I appeal once again to the minister to agree to that resolution of the dispute.

I must say that Mrs. Biberger appeared on the Jack Webster show with me. The minister then appeared on the Webster show the next day and he indicated that the veterinarians' report was inconclusive. Again, Mr. Chairman, I say that was a bit of a cop-out and the minister wasn't revealing all of the facts. There is no question but what the veterinarians' lab report for the offspring of that sow indicated clearly that rhinitis was evident. The minister knows that. The preponderance of evidence, all of the probabilities in the case, was indisputably that that herd had been infected by the purchase of brood sows from Tranquille.

As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, during the course of all the ongoing discussions, that point was never used as a defence by the minister and his staff. It was conceded that they probably contracted the disease from the brood sow from Tranquille, and then after all the discussions — which I thought were in good faith — after all the evidence had been weighed and the application by the farmers had been put before the minister, he said: "No, we won't pay any compensation." He resorted to the kind of legalistic proposition that there was no definitive legal evidence showing that the disease had been contracted from Tranquille farm when every reasonable-minded person would have to conclude that that indeed was the case. The local veterinarians involved were persuaded that was the case.

All I can say is that it's disappointing and rather irresponsible, in my view. Why not put it up to a third party so they could weigh the position of the minister and his staff and the position and evidence put forward by the farmers? Let a fair, independent third appraisal act as the method of resolution. If the minister is secure in his position that he's right and that he had no obligation, what has he got to fear? If you can persuade some third party of that, fair enough. But justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That's not a tenet just applicable to criminal or civil law; that's a good principle for all government agencies to function by, and I commend it to the Minister of Agriculture in this regard. I think it would be a fair and responsible thing to do.

I would ask the minister if he would respond to this appeal to him. We can debate the facts of the case, but I'm not really particularly interested in doing that at this point; I think that would be better brought as evidence before a third-party tribunal. I ask the minister if he will reconsider his decision regarding setting up a third-party appraisal of the dispute.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of the Bibergers was fully canvassed during my estimates last year, then, as the member said, in my office and also on the Jack Webster show. If he's not aware of it I might mention to the member that Dr. Avery, the man who works in my ministry, is a very highly qualified person. He's very knowledgeable and well known in the agricultural community for his expertise. I don't want to debate this issue all over again, but to respond to the member's request for us to have a third party decide this matter.... I know he wants to get the best for his constituent, and I applaud him for that, but I think the matter is closed. We have the information from experts. It's not just a decision of the minister hiding behind the doors of my office, but good information from highly qualified people. I think the decision has been fair and just. For example, it is determined — and the experts will tell you — that no hog herd anywhere can be guaranteed free from disease organism, including those that cause atrophic rhinitis. It is also known that the Bibergers were assembling a herd from various sources and could not have had adequate isolation since all the animals were housed in a single building. Mrs. Biberger, on Webster's show, stated that. I'll just mention what she said: "I would like to say we got our stock from two or three sources, but we had no problems with the farm until we got the Tranquille stock." Then she went on to say something about fumbling the ball and that I admitted fumbling the ball. I think if the member checks Hansard — I was responding to the comments of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — I believe the expression used in Hansard is: "In listening to his arguments, and if they were valid...." I think my quote was: "I think we fumbled the ball a bit."

The matter was investigated, and the determination was that we could not accept liability for that and the demand for $20,000 compensation that the Bibergers wanted. I think the Bibergers will readily agree that in buying stock from a

[ Page 5173 ]

livestock dealer they accept those risks inherent in purchasing livestock, and that no livestock dealer that I'm aware of anywhere in Canada is looking at giving compensation if the same type of situation developed and there was some possibility that stock that he sold might be affected when there was an assembly of a herd from several sources. So, Mr. Member, I have to say to you that the matter has been closed, in my opinion. To move to a third party would not serve any purpose; we've had the professional input to make the determination that we could not accept that liability or responsibility. I will tell the member, though, that because of this and because of the issue that has been raised, I advised my staff that I did not feel we should continue to sell pigs out of our Tranquille Farm. It's basically a research area, and rather than expose us to this type of possibility, we should not proceed with any sales.

I can tell the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that I have a number of letters which have come in saying to me: "We've always been pleased with stock we've got from Tranquille. We wish you'd reconsider making available for sale hogs or pigs from the Tranquille Farm." But I can't, in all fairness to the government and to the taxpayers of this province, expose them to a possibility of a $20,000 claim for what was originally, I think, about a $1,200 or $800 purchase. That exposure is too great. The member makes a case for his constituent. I say the constituent got a fair hearing; we made that determination after a detailed analysis of the situation. It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure why government and my ministry has to accept that responsibility on something that no other livestock dealer will accept responsibility for. Secondly, there is no determination that the pigs we sold were infected. As a matter in fact, the one sow in question, No. 68K, was examined and found to have no evidence of rhinitis, and yet that's the one we're being accused of selling them diseased and the one which allegedly caused problems in their herd.

So I think we've given this matter a pretty good detailed analysis and we have arrived at a conclusion. I'm sorry that the Bibergers cannot be accommodated, but I think it would be somewhat irresponsible on my part if I exposed the provincial taxpayer to this type of claim when it's not justified.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has certainly given his answer, and I suppose I have to accept that as final. But again, I put it to the minister very clearly — aside from any dispute regarding the validity of the claim, aside from whether or not the minister's professional staff indicated that the hog was not infected — that that is really not the issue. Normally when a government — which in my view has a different obligation to the people of the province than some private operator — comes into dispute, the fair thing to do is to set up a system of arbitration, so that the two sides can be aired fairly. In this case the minister is hearing one side of it — his own. He is acting as the inquiry, he is acting as the court and he is making the determination, which flies in the face of common natural justice. If the Bibergers' case is weak, if it's not supported by evidence and the facts, then what does the minister have to fear from taking that dispute to a public tribunal, a third-party tribunal which could hear the evidence and make the decision?

I think it's shocking that the minister has said there is no different responsibility upon a government agency than that which rests on a private supplier. I pointed out last year, Mr. Chairman, that this government has one whole ministry devoted to protecting the consumer in the marketplace. They set rules and regulations that demand of the private sector fair treatment for the consumer. And here he is repudiating that very concept by saying: "Let the buyer beware. We won't accept liability for infected stock that is sold." It's the equivalent thing to saying: " I'm offering a used car for sale, and let the buyer beware if the motor doesn't run." Maybe that is the mentality of Social Credit. Maybe that's their feeling of fair play — natural justice. It's certainly not mine and it's certainly not the Bibergers'. I suggest that it doesn't square with the majority of the people in British Columbia who have an inherent sense of justice and fair play. The minister is dodging the issue. He's trying to say: "Well, the hog wasn't infected." Let's put that aside. He has an expert in his department with a vested interest and obligation to the minister who claims that there's no evidence. In most cases it's fair to let the person who's making the claim bring in their own professional evidence and submit that to an independent arbiter, rather than the minister. It's a complete disregard and a shocking misunderstanding, of the minister's responsibility, in my view.

However, I have no further way of persuading the minister to change his position. I guess we have to let it rest. I guess we have to accept that the minister is intransigent on this matter. The minister mentioned the amount of compensation that was being asked. Compensation is normally a negotiable item. The minister says that they only paid $1,200 for the hogs. He conveniently forgot to acknowledge, as he has done before, that the cost to the farmers of isolating those hogs, providing medication and special feed amounted to some $15.000, with documented receipts. The minister has a selective memory. I think that's unfortunate as well.

So be it. I will return to Salmon Arm and I will let the Bibergers know. I'm going to let the people of the entire farming community know what the minister's attitude is when it comes to fair treatment and hearings for anyone in the farming community who comes into dispute with his department. He will sit as the judge. He will sit as the prosecutor and the jury. Some fair play and even-handedness! What a perverted sense of justice that government has. Shame on him, I say.

I want to raise with the minister again one other matter which I've raised on previous occasions. I want to indicate that this matter regarding taxation on agricultural land affects the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Ministry of Finance. I believe I appealed to the minister last year to consult with his colleague. the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), regarding the maintenance of the agricultural designation for taxation purposes on some rural land. In those cases where senior citizens have lived on a farm for perhaps 20 years, worked it, then either through indigence or some handicap are unable to continue farming it, and because they do not raise the required revenue from that farm to preserve the agricultural tax designation, it's lost. and they are then assessed with a residential tax on that farm. This means that in those cases people are literally being driven off the farm land. I appreciate that the taxation device is designed to drive agricultural land into use. I generally agree.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the member's remarks, but I think he also recognizes that he's now talking taxation and a matter of finance, not agricultural issues. I would be pleased to hear what he has to say, but I think the appropriate place would be under the Minister of finance's estimates.

[ Page 5174 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues, bearing those remarks in mind.

MR. KING: I indicated at the outset that there is an overlapping responsibility here. Certainly the primary taxation function is under the Ministry of Finance. I shall be dealing with it there. The Minister of Agriculture surely has a responsibility regarding the general administration and preservation of agricultural land and what happens to farming people in their old age. What I'm pointing out is a situation where a family has operated a farm for perhaps 10 to 20 years, and through either handicap or old age they are no longer able to operate it to the full extent. Should they be driven off the land by changing the tax status? They are not speculators. I submit that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a responsibility here. We have government programs under the Minister of Agriculture and Food designed to provide some kind of income security for farming people in the province of British Columbia. But the minister knows, as the House knows, that that's minimal — it's meagre. In most cases it doesn't provide the kind of income security for old age that would be necessary to sustain them.

If the minister is saying: "Look, I have no responsibility here to protect farmers who have occupied a farm for years, who have operated it well and complied with the production schedules set under the Ministry of Finance," and if he feels he has no obligation to those people who will be virtually kicked off that farm and lose it, then I say that's shocking too. What I want to ask the minister is if he has addressed himself to this problem. Has he had any discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Finance? What is his attitude toward it? Does he think this is fair and just? Is he prepared to make representations to the Minister of Finance regarding the security of the farming community that he, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, is responsible for upholding? I simply want to know. I do intend to raise this with the Minister of Finance, but I'd like to know what the Minister of Agriculture and Food's attitude is. Basically what I'm asking is: in the case of senior citizens and handicapped people, can this designation be varied to accommodate them so they will not lose their home and be placed into a market that is highly inflationary today and which they can't adjust to? That's my question to the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the last item first. If we're talking about an agricultural piece of land of 5, 10 or 20 acres and the people have grown too old to farm, first of all they can, as the member knows, lease out that land to keep it in production and get a return at least — if not more — to pay the cost of taxation on that land. In regard to those people who are over age 65, they have two alternatives — the same as a resident in the city or any other area of residential property, not a farm. First of all, they get the senior citizens' homeowner grant on their residence. As the member said, they're no longer farming, but they're residents so they get the benefit of the homeowner grant. Secondly, if they are still suffering a hardship, they can defer the property taxes on their home property. I appreciate what the member says, but I think the system is in place and is working. They can lease out their property and make a return over and above what they would get on their senior citizens' pension or old-age pension or whatever the case may be — at least enough to pay the taxes and still hold the land in their name. Secondly, they have the benefit of the senior citizens' homeowner grant and, of course, the deferment of taxes on their property. I would appreciate it if the member would raise that issue under the Ministry of Finance where it really should be raised, and if there is a void there, I would not want to see extreme hardship on our seniors any more than he would.

Now in regard to the Bibergers — just to cap it off, in my opinion — when the member is saying that this minister is not being fair and has done a number of things and that the Bibergers have been poorly treated. Mr. Member, I think the Bibergers had a fair hearing by fully qualified people — not by politicians, but by fully qualified people. I can tell you, Mr. Member, that in using this as a political ploy, which is what you've done over the past year — you've used it in this House; you've used it on Webster; you've used it in your writing — you've taken one person who had a problem and used it to gain political points in your riding and wherever you could. You accomplished something, Mr. Member, because what you did is you put the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in a position where in order to protect the public purse and the taxpayers' dollars of this province, I have had to say to my people in Tranquille Farm: "No more sales. Cease and desist." We cannot carry on this way, because every time we sell a pig we run the issue that some politician is going to get up there and wave the banner and say: "That terrible government! That bad Minister of Agriculture and Food won't listen to the people." I can tell you that the Bibergers got a good, fair hearing by qualified people and not by politicians.

That member has accomplished his goal. He used it for political points — a political ploy. He took the Bibergers as a vehicle to get the message across. He has accomplished the fact that there are no more sales of pigs out of Tranquille. Let me tell you, I've got letters on my files saying other hog producers are rather dissatisfied with the fact that a politician and one issue can stop the sale of pigs from Tranquille Farm. So you've accomplished a great political point: you've stopped the sale of pigs out of Tranquille Farm because you wanted to make points, whether it be on "Webster" or in your own riding. I have letters here from people who have ordered pigs over the past several years and have been more than pleased with them, but recognize that because of this use of an individual farm operator by a politician that source of pigs is now closed off to the entire hog industry in this province. Shame on you!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I guess that kind of performance is the last refuge of a person who has a bit of a guilt complex. The minister knows that those statements he made are not true. I attended the minister's office on no less than three occasions when the minister promised a fair hearing in the village of Salmon Arm and advised me that I would be notified so that I could attend along with my constituents. The minister set up what he considered to be a fair hearing in Salmon Arm, composed of the very staff who were accused of selling the infected hogs to the farmers, so that a farmer who was appealing against an alleged wrong had to go to the person accused of that wrong and sit there and be interrogated by that staff. The minister neglected to even advise me of that hearing. I was advised by the constituents. The minister broke his promise on that occasion.

I attended the minister's office again. I had four meetings with the minister and his staff before this matter was ever raised publicly in this Legislature. Is that the conduct of someone who is looking to make a political issue out of what

[ Page 5175 ]

should have been an easily resolved constituency problem? Not at all. When I raised it in the Legislature last year, I indicated to the minister a reluctance to do so and asked him simply if he could give me a status report. He was the one — as last year's Hansard will show — who went into a debate of all the facts of the case. I simply asked him, because he had promised me a decision, if that decision had been made, He recounted all of the facts in the Legislature. That was the first publication of that dispute. Now he has the colossal gall — I can't say lack of sincerity....

MR. STUPICH: Why not?

MR. KING: Because I guess that's unparliamentary.

He knows that he was the first one to raise it publicly. I don't need this kind of public political issue with the sorry shape that that government is in, hiring film-makers at $14,000 a crack to try to improve their image. I need that kind of political issue? Not at all. I have enough basis upon which to attack the credibility of this government without making political issues out of what should have been an ordinary and very easily resolved dispute between a farmer in this province and the government — a heavy-handed government.

The minister gets up and again confirms that his idea of justice is that when his ministry is accused he has his experts — the very ones who were accused — do the investigation, bear the evidence, make the judgment and say to the person who made the complaint: " You've had a fair hearing." That's what Goebbels would say. That's what the Kremlin would say. But in Canada we operate under the British system of justice, which holds that every person has his day in court, the chance to face his accuser, the chance to present evidence and be judged by an impartial person. What a sorry commentary on a minister of the Crown — he's going to get up and clear things up. Shame on him! Social Credit justice: we'll tramp all over the farmers of this province, and if they don't like it we'll tell them to let the buyer beware if that's not good enough and we get a complaint, we'll close down the operation and not sell any more hogs. What a petulant, irresponsible child that minister is. It’s nonsense. I don't even see any point in appealing to that kind of mentality.

Yes, I'll make an issue of it, open and up-front. I challenge the minister to come to Salmon Arm and debate this issue before the public, now or any time. I want to tell the minister that the people involved in this case were certainly not NDPers. It had nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It had to do with common, ordinary justice which that minister apparently can't recognize or comprehend in any way. Shame on him. For him to get up and accuse me of doing it for politics is just plain ignorant. I don't need that kind of issue to win the election in my riding, Mr. Minister. You may, but I don't.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief, because the member himself defeats his own argument in the statements he's just made. He said that every person in British Columbia — I believe his statement was — has a right to his day in court. That's what he said. He knows full well that if the Bibergers feel strongly abused by the decision made by qualified professional people and feel that they've been unjustly treated, they can have their day in court. That's what they can do. The amount of time and the amount of dollars spent to thoroughly investigate this matter and to come up with a realistic decision........

MR. KING: You're a real heavyweight. Just sue the government. eh? Every little farmer sue the government. Nonsense!

HON. MR. HEWITT: That member knows full well that it's a total manipulation of people who have a problem by a politician who is attempting to make points. We've investigated this matter thoroughly and we have determined that the sow in question did not have atrophic rhinitis. This was determined not by politicians out of Salmon Arm but by doctors who have PhDs or are highly qualified in the industry. That member over there still carries on the debate and the argument. If there are grounds for a case. then I suggest that, like any other person. that member should be discussing the matter with his constituent. If we go to court, we go to court.

I'm just saying that as Minister of Agriculture and Food we attempted to give a full analysis of the problem and we treated the Bibergers fairly. It's only the politician across the way that keeps muddying the waters in an attempt to make political points on somebody's unfortunate situation with regard to their hog production unit.

MR. RITCHIE: May I have leave of the House to make a special introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: It does me proud to introduce a group to our chamber today. They're people who know what farming is all about. They come from the constituency of Central Fraser Valley — Clearbrook. They are members of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society, under the leadership of Mr. Wiens. Would the House please join me in welcoming these people.

MS. SANFORD: I must say that I share the disappointment of the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) with respect to the kind of justice that his constituent received from this Government. I'm also very disturbed that a minister of the Crown would accuse another member of this House of playing politics when he's trying to work on behalf of his constituents as an elected member of this Legislature.

However, that's not why I'm on my feet. I want to raise with the minister a question related specifically to the Comox Valley, although I think it's a problem which occurs in many regions of the province. In the Comox Valley we have a resting area for trumpeter swans, who like to feed in the estuary, but who also like to feed on the young, new shoots that grow on the farmer's fields. Unfortunately this is at great cost to the farmers of the area. The farmers of the area certainly appreciate, as does all of society, the trumpeter swans and want them protected. They certainly don't want them destroyed. But they don't want to pay the full price for protecting these swans that come every year and feed on the crops within the Comox Valley.

Sometimes on one particular large farm in the area there are as many as 200 swans feeding at one time. That could amount to as much as 300,000 pounds of the farmer's crop as a result of the heavy feeding that takes place on the new shoots. It's costly. I know that in the Fraser Valley the same problem occurs with various other wildlife birds. particularly geese, ducks and so on. Sometimes the cost to farmers can be as high as $30,000 in damages to crops.

[ Page 5176 ]

The wildlife people tell us that they don't have any money in their budgets to compensate farmers for their losses. I'm wondering what sort of work is being done within the ministry in order to come to grips with this problem and hopefully come up with some financing to reimburse the farmers who in my view are carrying an unfair burden in terms of feeding the swans and providing sustenance out of their pockets for these trumpeter swans that everyone wants protected, including the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I could give the minister a bit more information, if he needs it, in order to answer the questions that I posed to him with respect to what's happening within his ministry. The minister obviously has not involved himself in any discussions about compensation to farmers from these kinds of losses. It is a serious problem in my area. I know that the farmers have all been approached by the various news media in order to give their comments on the problem. I realize that it's a contentious issue. They have to look to government in order to get some kind of compensation. Whether this could be done in reduction in income tax or property tax.... I don't know how it can be done. Hopefully this is an issue that if the minister himself has not been involved in up to this point — and I don't think he has, based on the way in which he's trying to get information from his staff seated behind him — I hope he does get involved. I know the farmers of my area certainly would like some assistance in this problem.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a point with regard to wildlife and the conflict between wildlife and the agricultural community. No, at the present time we do not have a program that assists in any way. We would also have a problem if we were to look at such a program that compensated the farmer for this type of loss. Let me run through the wildlife list for you. You mentioned swans in the Comox Valley and the fact that they come in and eat some of the new crop. We have ducks and geese throughout British Columbia that do the same thing. We have coyotes that attack some of the farm communities, raccoons that get into hen houses, the elk problem in the Kootenays, which is a conflict between wildlife and agriculture, the deer in Creston in the Okanagan Valley that get into the tree fruit industry and the wolves that attack the cattle out on the range. We have all of those problems.

I can say, Madam Member, that if we address the question that you raise, we have to look at the whole question. I not sure what the result would be. Firstly, it would probably be very costly and secondly, in many cases it would be hard to identify whether the loss occurred because of a problem created by government as opposed to the natural environment in which the farm operation and the wildlife exist. You can see the problem. Your solution might be simple to you: compensation to the farmer for this loss. But the exposure to additional costs could be substantial.

MS. SANFORD: I didn't for a minute suggest that it might be an easy answer. As a matter of fact, we do have programs of compensation for farmers already. For instance, when the farmers in the same area who are raising sheep have had sheep losses, they have been compensated because of those losses. That's either through attacks by dogs or wolves or whatever, but they can get compensated. I don't see that the situation is that different in terms of the other farmers in the area who also are suffering losses as a result of wildlife.

Surely if you can develop a program for compensation for sheep losses as a result of wolf attacks. you should be able to come up with some kind of program that would address this particular program, particularly in view of the fact that the trumpeter swans, as far as I'm aware, are still protected by society — and they should be; I agree with that. The farmers have no alternative but to accept these damages and bear the full cost for the protection of these swans that society demands. Surely the minister can come up with some program similar to the one that compensates those farmers who have lost sheep. There again, they have to prove their point; they have to indicate to the local agriculturalist what sort of losses they've had and then can apply for compensation. I think that it would be quite easy to determine the extent of losses through trumpeter swans. They've very obvious when they're in the fields; they're very beautiful to look at. But the farmer, of course, has to pay the price.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has visited Alberta again; he's wearing a new suit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 10.

MR. LEVI: He's probably the greatest social service tax dodger in the province. Without a doubt, a social service tax dodger, that's what he is.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food a question first and see if I can get an answer, and then I'd like to talk about food. Can the minister tell us when we might expect the annual report from his ministry? Can we expect it during the estimates? The deputy minister leans forward. Tell him, Jim: it ain't ready.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by my deputy minister that it is all prepared and ready to be filed. So if you carry on the debate it should be before this House, I would assume, by tomorrow.

MR. LEVI: He started to say, "I am instructed," and then he stopped and said: "I'm advised." We've got to know who's running the show over there. Is that the deputy's arm waving over there?

Last year the minister renamed his ministry and called it the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's a very appropriate change of name. After all, the major preoccupation of the ministry is with the production of food. The minister had some goals — albeit long-range goals — that we should move from the 60 to 65 percent importation of food and at least get close to 50 percent, building on that so as to become more self-sufficient. When things are good in the forest industry we often hear in this House how well we're doing in terms of exports, because we're able to export at a dollar worth 84 cents, and that aids us; but on the other hand we're importing food at a cost of $1.18 Canadian. Within the last few weeks we've seen an incredibly high increase in the cost of living in British Columbia particularly — one of the highest in the country — food being a major component of that dramatic increase.

I've gone through the Blues, I've listened to the minister in the debates and I know he's been under persistent and correct attack about the ALR, but I'd like to hear him talk about what he is doing in terms of a food strategy. After all, he's changed the name of his department, and food is going to

[ Page 5177 ]

have some focus. What is he going to do about that? Does that particular strategy, if he has one.... I think it's now two years since the federal and provincial ministers met to discuss a national food strategy; it was certainly before the Conservatives came into power, because as I recall Mr. Whelan was still the minister, and he is again the minister. There's the whole question of a food strategy. What can we hold out to the taxpayers in this province? I don't for one minute believe we can ever expect to see food prices go down, but we do have to expect that we can contain food prices within the limits of the many people in this province who live on fixed incomes. About 20 percent of the people in this province live on fixed incomes, so dramatic increases in the cost of living, particularly the cost of food, really exact an incredible hardship on these people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We're now in the midst of a housing crisis, and those two components.... In Ottawa in 1964 they sought to discover poverty. They suddenly tripped over it and found there were people in this country who in fact lived in poverty. They enunciated a definition that if you paid more than 70 percent of your income for food and rent you were living below the poverty line. Strangely enough, the poverty level for a family of four today is of the order of $12,000. Food continues to be a very considerable cost to people in this province.

The minister has not indicated in any remarks he's made so far in this debate just what he has in mind in terms of the food component of his department. I'm not just talking about how, yes, he'll be concerned about assisting in more warehousing for the apple growers, or he has to look for some more cold storage, because that only deals with the products available in the province and what is coming in. What kind of strategy has he evolved in terms of the creation of more farms that would, for instance, lead to the growing of more vegetables. That's a key factor. If you go into a store today you pay a dollar or a dollar and a quarter for tomatoes. You might find some for 79 cents because they're rushed in from Mexico. What has the minister got in mind?

I also want to ask him another question. In his concern for food, has the department looked at the problem of wastage in terms of the food industry? From time to time, particularly in the vegetable market area, the price isn't available and some of the products do not reach the market. Some are even destroyed. That's happened. We had it a year ago, when we had a great many cabbages and cauliflowers ploughed under the ground because the price wasn't satisfactory enough. That's a tough thing to do in light of the fact that people are having to pay very high prices for food. Some people go without the basic food needs simply because they can't afford to pay for it.

I'd like to hear the minister move away from his defensive role on the ALR and the business we have just had with the pig up in Tranquille, and talk about food for a minute. What has he got in mind? Has he simply attached the name "Food" to his department because it sounds good? It's an appropriate move, but what has happened in the past year? What plans does that department have to assist not only farmers but also consumers? What can consumers expect? I'm not talking about inspection, because inspection is primarily done by the federal government. What's going to happen? Can we expect a major push by that department and the government to assist young farmers? We are interested in food production. I'd like to have the minister respond to that so we can get into a debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm glad that the member brought up the question of the expanded mandate, because quite often during estimates and other times I'm addressed as the Minister of Agriculture, when I'm really the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I think we're playing an important role in food production in this province and in the expansion of that food production.

The member is correct that we have to pay approximately $1.18 Canadian for imported products because the value of our dollar is approximately 83 cents. That gives a competitive advantage to the B.C. food product. It means that the price of that imported product is now quite often higher than what we charge, and it gives us the opportunity to compete and to displace some of that imported product. I think we should take all of the advantage we can of that situation, where because of the value of the Canadian dollar imported products are higher. We expanded the mandate of the ministry and we looked in the area of promotion of food. We expanded what we call our economics and marketing, branch of the ministry. In that area we are assisting with marketing of British Columbian agricultural products, both in the domestic marketplace and working with the various commodity groups in determining export markets for our products.

Mr. Member, we indicated — as you mentioned, I believe that back a few years ago we had 43 percent self-sufficiency in agricultural production in British Columbia. We had a ten-year program to achieve 65 percent self-sufficiency. We haven't moved very far in about three or four years. We're only up to approximately 45 percent self-sufficiency, but at the same time. Mr. Member, you know there has been an expansion of the population in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, since 1977 we've grown in population from approximately 2.5 million to 2.642 million, and that gives us an expanded marketplace. We've taken care of that additional consumer demand, and we've slightly increased our percentage share of the market. That indicates with the increased production on the farm that we are getting more B.C. product to the marketplace and to the B.C. consumer in most cases, and in some cases to the consumer outside of British Columbia, by our marketing in the export market area.

I can't bring exhibits into this House, Mr. Chairman, but I do have two exhibits that I was going to bring in. One is what we call "Home-grown B.C. Quality." It's a logo. It's the dogwood symbol and green, white and black in colour. We have two now: one for the fresh product, homegrown B.C. quality; and a symbol of three small dogwoods which really indicates B.C. processed products. Those types of labels are going on food products in the various supermarkets and stores throughout British Columbia. We have a few people in the gallery today. If I could just take a moment to give a commercial, if you're out there shopping in the supermarket and you see a green logo saying "B.C. homegrown quality," buy it, because if you buy it you assist our producer and you also assist the economy of British Columbia, as opposed to buying a product imported from outside the province.

I think that we are seeing inroads into our market penetration. One I can give you would be in the hog industry in this province. We have moved substantially from about 1977-78 when one of the packing houses was going to close because they only received a guaranteed supply of about 500 hogs a

[ Page 5178 ]

week, or less than that. Since the joint effort of the Ministry of Agriculture, the hog producers and the processor, we have now achieved with that processor approximately 4,500 to 5,000 hogs a week going through that processing plant. I think that's an excellent move in promoting food products in this province. That is a value-added product in the sense that it's taking the animal and processing it into ham, bacon, luncheon meats, etc. We're seeing some good results.

You mentioned wastage in the food industry and the producer having to destroy produce. You mentioned that the price was not satisfactory. Mr. Member, I think you're a little wrong. I don't think it's the price that causes the problem of produce that has to be ploughed back into the ground. It's that the market is not available. That's the major problem. In most cases, where the producer produces X number of acres of cauliflower or cabbage, he produces it, puts it through a local co-op and gets it to the wholesaler. But if the marketplace isn't there and cannot absorb his production, if he produced more than what he normally would produce in anticipation that the market could absorb it, he has no choice. He can't sell it, and therefore he has no alternative but to get rid of it because it's a highly perishable crop; it doesn't last very long.

He ploughs it back into the ground. Basically that's good management. It's been done for years on the part of the farmers because he takes that produce that was grown on his land and puts it back into the land for fertilizer for the next year's crop. Unfortunately we receive a lot of comments from the news media, and the television cameras show this surplus product being destroyed, being ploughed back into the ground. Unfortunately, the case can always be made that there are starving people in the world and people on fixed incomes. You've got to have a marketing system, get it to the marketplace and get a price for the product. In most cases we can meet that demand, but there are instances .... It only takes one to get front-page coverage and, all of a sudden, things are terrible in agriculture and we're destroying all this food. For centuries, if there has been surplus production, the farmer, in good management, has had to plough it into the ground and use it to fertilize his next year's crop. In our planning, and in the agricultural community's planning to meet market demands, we come pretty close, so that we don't have tremendous surplus production whereby food is seen rotting. I think we've got that system pretty well under control and you very seldom see that type of thing happening.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister has opened up a number of other areas that I want to pursue. I think we should leave it till after the lunch break.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:08 p.m.