[ Page 1083 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Harbour Board Repeal Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Mr. Hanson –– 1083

Mr. Stupich –– 1087

Mrs. Dailly –– 1092

Ms. Sanford –– 1096

Mr. Michael –– 1102

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1983

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome two prominent British Columbians, one of whom, in the full course of time, will be sitting on the floor of this chamber: Arlene and Lyle MacWilliam from Vernon.

MR. MOWAT: I ask the House to welcome today Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Haberl of Lakefield, Quebec. Mrs. Harberl is visiting Victoria for the wedding this coming Saturday of her grandson Timothy Park, of Kimberley, B.C., to Judith Ann Laine. Mrs. Halberl has eight children, 38 grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. She is in the members' gallery, accompanied by her son Bill and his wife Margaret. I ask the House to welcome the Halberls.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. HANSON: I rise in opposition to this bill, for a number of very good reasons, one of which is that 4,000 acres of Class 1 and 2 farmland, which is British Columbia's very best farmland, is being transferred to the B.C. Development Corporation against the wishes of the Delta council, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Agricultural Land Commission. That's just on the farmland; there are other objections to the transfer of Crown assets to B.C. Rail and the B.C. Development Corporation, with all of the valuable running rights of the rail lines that go through those parcels. There are labour contracts involved that will be terminated, and the employees will come under the provisions of that draconian legislation, Bill 3, which strips any kinds of rights away from working people. When this bill is viewed in the context of Bill 9, the Municipal Act amendment that takes away regional planning so that there is no coherent plan that outlines transit or development prospects between municipalities, we have a package which could result in large-scale industrial, commercial or residential development in an area that the municipality charged with running that local municipality does not want. This government will often argue for municipal autonomy when it suits their purposes; but when a municipality does have a wish for a particular project or a land use plan, this usurps their areas of authority and takes it away from them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The attitude of the government in this matter flows from the attitudes of the Premier of this province, and the way he perceives farmland and the value of farmland in this province. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to remarks made by the Premier on December 19, 1980. It was after our '79 election, and the Premier was passing through the northern town of Smithers. I think the House should pay close attention to what the Premier said on that particular day, because from his remarks flow the policies that have put our agricultural land in jeopardy in this province. This is from the Struthers paper and it's entitled "Housing Before Food, Says Bennett: 'It is ridiculous to think that B.C. can become self-sufficient in any food but apples,' says Premier Bill Bennett. In an interview last Wednesday in Smithers, where he made an overnight stop during the provincial tour, Bennett said the province had lots of land available for growing food and that land developers should be allowed to take good residential property out of the agricultural land reserve." May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that under the former government in this province, the New Democratic Party government, courageous steps were taken to preserve our very valuable agricultural land. That particular move has the support of all British Columbians; however, it does not have the support of this government.

[10:15]

"He said housing needs should be recognized before agricultural needs." Now, Mr. Speaker, any child in elementary school knows the topography of British Columbia: we have a province of inclines, slopes; we have very little good, well-drained valley bottom land which is capable of producing....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You know, we hear these remarks across the floor, Mr. Speaker, because they know that what I'm saying is reasonable and logical and just makes good sense in terms of the management of land in British Columbia. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) knows that what I'm talking about is absolutely correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your whole opposition to this bill is nothing but a bunch of hogwash.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that minister sitting beside that minister of hot air over there knows that our class 1 and 2....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The minister of hot air has at least gone out and done a day's work, and that's more than you've ever done. You sit around and read socialist books.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if we can maintain temperance of language we can also maintain orderly debate. I'll ask the hon. first member for Victoria to moderate his language and style of delivery, and I'll ask the minister to come to order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, one has to fight back in this chamber. That minister is leaving — he doesn't want to hear the logic and reason of my argument that agricultural land is a precious resource. It is a scarce and non-renewable resource. Here we have a proposal to remove it from the agricultural

[ Page 1084 ]

land reserve and transfer it to the B.C. Development Corporation for industrial purposes.

But let me continue with my comments on this particular article from the Smithers paper, because I think it's very telling about the attitude of the Premier — and the government, because clearly the cabinet follows the instructions of the Premier. "It's tough to get land out of the ALR. I don't think anyone has to worry about losing agricultural land. There's plenty of land around here."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we please have order and decorum.

MR. HANSON: "He said the process for appealing land commission decisions on exemption requests is tough; in fact, the procedure is probably too tough." In other words, this non-partisan objective body, the Agricultural Land Commission, which sits in judgment on applications to remove agricultural land from the reserve, and therefore from agricultural purposes, he feels should be interfered with more readily by politicians, and pressures of developers should be heeded more clearly by local government. He says the procedures are too tough. In other words, the protection of farmland is too strong. "The Premier suggested that as more population demands are placed on agricultural land" — I think this is very interesting; in fact it would be very humorous if it wasn't so tragic — "agriculture will move further and further out from the population centres." He thinks that you can put agricultural land on rollers and move it away from population centres. You can tow it away behind a truck. Clearly, agricultural land has to remain where it is. You can't move agricultural land further and further out from population centres. That's absurd.

Now let's hear what the Smithers editorial said about those comments.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get some more books and read them.

MR. HANSON: I've got lots of books here, and if you'll just be quiet you could learn something.

"The statements made by the Premier of British Columbia in Smithers last Wednesday are either figments of a distraught mind or they are an indication of the most frightening policy directions yet brought down upon this province." Isn't that amazing. The editorial staff of that paper was very quick to recognize that the Premier's comments and attitudes towards the preservation of farmland were frightening policy decisions. "To deal with his remarks about agricultural land first...to believe a man of his purported intelligence could be suggesting B.C. should forget about producing its own food. With world population surging, the demand for food constantly outstrips productive capacity. In B.C. this pressure is more evident every day, as the products of the market garden of the western rim, California, get more costly." This is very important, Mr. Speaker, because it's our very survival in British Columbia that we can feed ourselves. "In fact the source of food is drying up, oranges and grapefruit excepted, as the products are required to feed the people of the United States. Where standards of living are rising in other parts of the world, those places that have in the past exported their surpluses to places such as Canada, the amount of surpluses gets less, and we're paying the premiums." California's farmland is diminishing, and the population of Mexico, from which we get a great amount of our vegetable crops, is growing to such an extent that it is no longer going to be able to provide our food. Therefore, rather than being more and more reliant on external sources of food, we must get more and more reliant ourselves. We must be protecting that precious farmland in the Fraser Valley around the mouth of the delta.

That delta, by the way, has built up over the last 10,000 years. It may be a surprise to many members on that side of the House that that delta was laid down as the ice wasted away in the last glacial advance, and over 10,000 years the delta has laid down those sediments right from the city of Hope. It may also be a surprise that 10,000 years ago people were sitting on the beach up at Hope and collecting shellfish. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you're a fan of shellfish.

I think it's interesting to note that that particular foreshore, that beach, was at Hope, and what we have in the Fraser Valley is a fiord that has been filled up by the deposition of the Fraser River. Those sediments are thousands and thousands of feet thick, and do you know, that precious Fraser delta is building at a rate of about ten feet a year. But that's not fast enough because we can't expect that Fraser delta to lay down good productive farmland as fast as this government will alienate it and cover it with asphalt and roads and carparks and shopping centres and plazas.

Our argument is that that precious resource should be saved and wherever possible development activity should be focused on non-agricultural land. We can construct industrial complexes on sloping land and on rock. In fact, the development costs are often cheap, because you don't have to lay down the foundation. But the problem is that agricultural land is generally at an assessed value which is low, and great profits can be made by buying agricultural land used for the production of vegetables, hay, forage or something like that and flipping it into some large-scale industrial activity.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against industry.

MR. HANSON: I'm not against industry; I'm against industry on class 1 farmland.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will have every opportunity to speak when he closes debate.

MR. HANSON: I know it's impossible for that minister to understand the distinction between building industrial complexes on land that is agricultural or non- agricultural. When you have the best farmland in the province, why do you want to build industrial complexes on it? That's a very simple question.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I'm not alone. They laugh, but I'm not alone nor is our caucus on this side on the House alone in our opposition.

I indicated that the Delta council wrote to that minister very recently and asked him to put that land into the property management branch of the Agricultural Land Commission. Why? Because they felt that there was no assurance that that land would be maintained as farmland, nor would they have any say in development if it went to BCDC. If it went to the Agricultural Land Commission property management branch they would administer it as farmland and would find

[ Page 1085 ]

young, enterprising and energetic farmers who would happily take over that land and make it productive and produce the very valuable food resources that we require.

Just to conclude with a paragraph from the Smithers newspaper....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you're reading the newspapers. You've never had an original idea of your own.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you're a bore. Why don't you shut up?

MR. HANSON: Not only is he a bore; he's a dummy.

"There is so little agriculturally suitable land in this province — a maximum of about 4 percent. It is incumbent upon society to make that land precious, to use it in the most practical manner, to husband it with loving care. It does not need to become part of the blacktop jungle. There is any amount of other lands suitable for housing without alienating the little bits available with which body and soul can be kept together."

A very important argument, pointing out the awareness of the people of the north to the fact that they oftentimes cannot provide the food resources they require. They pay exorbitant prices for it, and rely upon the production of the Fraser Valley and the very rare and precious valley bottomlands of the Skeena, of the Peace and other areas by which British Columbia can, if not be self-sufficient, then at least attempt selfsufficiency.

For the elucidation of that minister, I have some statistics that indicate how our self-sufficiency in various foodstuffs has declined over the last few years. For example, in 1961 we produced 53 pounds of red meat per capita, and consumed 132 pounds. In 1980 our production per capita dropped to 47 pounds and consumption increased to 165 pounds. So on beef alone we are in a declining position. In terms of vegetable products, poultry and so on, these statistics are very important. Per capita production of vegetables in 1961 was 169 pounds and we consumed 337 pounds — roughly double. By 1980 we were producing substantially less: 133 pounds, down from 169 pounds, and our consumption was up to 360 pounds; so by 1980 we were producing roughly one third of our needs. This is even taking into account population increase and so on. We are dealing on a per capita basis, and as our population increases, clearly the extent of our selfsufficiency is declining; we should be arresting that and turning it around.

[10:30]

In terms of fish products, our production has been declining substantially: in 1961 we produced 390 pounds of fish per capita, with a consumption of only 12 pounds; in 1980 we produced only 114 pounds. That should tell us something about the management of our fish resource, as well as the amount produced. To be producing only one-third of the fish per capita that we produced in 1961 is alarming; our consumption increased from 12 pounds annually to 17 pounds. British Columbians have never been great fish-eaters, but I think that is something that is changing, and should change. Fish is an excellent source of protein; it's something we can provide in British Columbia. It is extremely low in fat; it is very nutritious. It is something that we are capable of harvesting in plenty and managing in association with our limited land-based resources.

MR. MICHAEL: Do you want us to lower the wages to make production costs lower?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Members wishing to enter into debate will have every opportunity to do so.

MR. HANSON: I think those asides coming from the other side of the House are really interesting.

The government is not regarded as a good land manager, even among the populace. They don't see them as husbanding the resources properly in managing them. I'm pointing out to them the folly of their ways. I don't mind if they heckle and throw in non sequiturs, etc., because they don't understand the implications on the future of our province. Externally, we are going to be paying the price in the future. They have a policy of living off their grandchildren in the sense that they want to dispose of valuable resources today without regard to the future. We're trying to tell them that it's false economics to use up our valuable agricultural land today and have to turn to external sources in the future, which will be extremely costly. Transportation costs will be extremely high.

Food will be the next crisis. We had an energy crisis when the oil cartels controlled our access to energy. The next major crisis we will be faced with will be in access to food, in access to world protein. There is already a famine in the world in terms of protein. I'm sure all of us are aware that our per capita consumption of protein is really an obscenity when compared with the access to food of many people in this world.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please, could all members take their seats. If we're going to have informal chats, may we have them somewhere else.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing out that British Columbia might in fact be a net exporter of many food commodities if we had a rational plan in the production of foodstuffs in this province, both from the sea and from the land. We could provide foodstuffs to the people of the world who desperately need access to good protein and so on. What we have instead is an extremely short-sighted policy. Under the provincial government's jurisdiction at present we have the Harbours Board, which has under its control 4,000 acres of the best farmland in British Columbia near the coal port in Tsawwassen; and rather than doing what the Delta council wants done, which is having it reverted to the Agricultural Land Commission; or rather than doing what the GVRD wants done, which is, having it revert to the Agricultural Land Commission property management branch; or rather than having done what concerned citizens and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture wanted, they chose to chart their own course and have given this land to B.C. Development Corporation and B.C. Rail for disposal as a Crown asset for acquisition by private developers.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you have recently looked at a map of south Delta, but there are very large parcels.... There is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle there. A fair amount of agricultural land in that area is under the Agricultural Land Commission, and it's highly contested. For example, we have the Spetifore property in the Tsawwassen

[ Page 1086 ]

area, which is not too far from this particular area. There is a proposal to put 10,000 housing units in there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How about the 726 acres on Tilbury Island?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order and I'll ask the hon. member to refer to the bill itself.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very important, though, to understand that the Harbours Board.... This bill before us to transfer this land to the B.C. Development Corporation has implications with respect to the Spetifore development and the Genstar development. Genstar has a very large piece of agricultural land adjacent to the Harbours Board land. It's the same land; it's class 1 and 2 agricultural land. Genstar has recently gone to the Agricultural Land Commission to try to get their land out of the agricultural land reserve. So we have the potential for havoc in that area, because we're not going to have any regional planning after Bill 9 is passed. The net result will be that the Harbours Board farmland could be developed into an industrial park or into a commercial development or a residential development. We have the Genstar parcel which could then be developed for the same purposes.

Ten thousand housing units are already proposed on the nearby Spetifore property, so there's the possibility there for a very large urban or industrial expansion, without any awareness of the transit implications or the strains and stresses on other sorts of services — transit through the Deas Tunnel, schools, hospitals and other social infrastructure in that area. These particular hazards should be pointed out in this House and debated as part of a lot larger puzzle and mosaic, rather than within the narrow confines of that 4,000 acres in itself.

They like to describe this bill as an innocuous bill, but it's not innocuous, because it impacts against the future food producing capacity of the province. It impacts against the notions of planning on a regional basis in rational way and of Delta council having a say in development within its own boundaries and adjacent areas. It also impinges upon the books of B.C. Rail because they're going to have Crown assets. For example, the running rights through that property which will be transferred to B.C. Rail — which has been described as to be of inestimable value, and they will have control of the running rights through that particular parcel of land — are consigned to their books.

MR. MICHAEL: Why don't you give us the figures on pork producers in British Columbia?

MR. HANSON: I can give you the figures on pork producers. I have them right here: 1961, 40.3 pounds production as a percentage of consumption; 1980, 28.6 pounds.

MR. MICHAEL: What year was that?

MR. HANSON: They're encompassed in the meat figures: 1961, 40.3; 1980, 28.6 — production as a percentage of consumption. For the information of the member, this is provided in StatsCan's table no –– 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That doesn't include the socialist pork-barrel.

MR. BLENCOE: I rise under standing order 40, Mr. Speaker. That minister constantly interrupts this House and throws abuse at various members. He not only throws abuse at members; he also shows disrespect for this chamber. I wish you would try to restrain that member and have him show some decorum in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is attempting to do that. The Chair must also remind all members that rising on points of order which are not points of order is also an abuse of the rules.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the arguments that I have made are reasonable, constructive and rational, and I'm sure that when the minister reviews the Blues.... Clearly they're supported not just by this side of the House but also by the municipality and the regional government involved and by the legitimate organization concerned with the preservation of farmland and B.C. food production — the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — and by all citizens concerned about our future and the development of it in a rational way. They can harp, they can say silly things and so on, but it doesn't deter me from trying to communicate to them that this particular action is wrong. This bill will be opposed and voted against by our side. It is not an innocuous bill; it is a bill that strips away from the local government a say in the development of a very large portion of their community. At times they use the argument that a local municipality should be the sole decision-maker in a particular case when it suits their purposes, they strip that authority away and totally disregard them.

They've had letters from Mayor Burnette of the Delta council asking that that land go to the property management branch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's a good man.

MR. HANSON: If he's such a good man, why don't you do what he asks you to do on behalf of his council?

MR. MOWAT: Have you seen the letter? Do you have the letter?

MR. HANSON: I think it's important that this House and the transcript of Hansard include an outline of what the property management branch of the Agricultural Land Commission is and does. I'm very pleased that in this House at this time is the member on our side of the House who set up the Agricultural Land Commission. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) had the wisdom to include in that structure a part of the Agricultural Land Commission called the property management branch. The property management branch was set up to acquire land on behalf of the public of the province if farmers wanted to sell their land and ensure that the land was maintained as farmland.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order. He will have every opportunity to enter into this debate, as everyone else will when they so wish and when they are

[ Page 1087 ]

recognized by this Chair. In the meantime could we please have some silence and decorum.

MR. HANSON: The property management branch of the Agricultural Land Commission was set up to acquire land from farmers who wanted to retire, but to make sure that the land they'd worked and loved was maintained in farmland. The property management branch was an opportunity for the Crown to assist young farmers to acquire land and to gain technical assistance and so on, so that that land could be maintained in productivity. That particular notion was enshrined in law and has served the public well. However, since the Social Credit government assumed power, I'm sorry to say that very little land, if any, has ever been moved into the property management branch, because the branch was never given funds to acquire land. That is a real disgrace.

"The commission, with the assistance of the property management branch, continues to promote agricultural development of farmlands through its farmland leasing program." They would lease farmland to young farmers, because clearly a young couple wanting to farm as a vocation would probably not have the capital necessary to go and buy 160 acres, a large enough tract of land to be economically viable. This particular commission and branch would assist them in a leasing program so that they wouldn't have to have that large amount of capital initially.

[10:45]

"The Agricultural Land Commission Act gives powers to acquire and dispose of farmland. While no purchases of farmland have been made in the last few years, the commission continues to lease properties leased during the initial years of operation." "The initial years of operation" is really a euphemism referring to the NDP government — the good old days when the commission had the funds to allow the young people to farm. "In addition to the commission owned properties, several properties owned by other agencies of the Crown, such as Lands, Parks and Housing, Highways, etc., have been turned over to the commission for leasing purposes." This is exactly what the Delta council and the other agencies I've referred to have asked. Just very simply, they've said to the minister: "Please, don't give land to the B.C. Development Corporation, because then we'll have no say in what happens. It'll be disposed of for the highest profit possible — disposal of a very valuable Crown asset. Give it to the Agricultural Land Commission, property management branch. They'll lease it out to young farmers, and in that gorgeous area of South Delta we'll have farmland and food-producing capacity for the future."

I guess I already referred to some of these things before reading this little section:

"The Commission's objective in leasing land are: (1) to assist young persons, who otherwise could not afford to buy a farm at today's high prices, in establishing family-run farm operations; (2) to assist bona fide farmers to increase farm unit size so as to create viable rational units; (3) to promote integrated and multiple land use aims; (4) to encourage optimum agricultural production. In addition to leasing farmland to individuals, the commission has in the past attempted to facilitate community projects that would enhance the agricultural community, such as the city of Vernon effluent spray irrigation project on 810 hectares and the community pasture project on the East Kootenay ranches (since abandoned due to budget restraints)...."

So here was a case in the Premier's own riding where the Agricultural Land Commission was able to assist in cleaning up the Okanagan Lake drainage system by stopping the dumping of raw sewage into Okanagan Lake, which was producing the high phosphates and the production of milfoil, which was choking the lake. They were able to redirect effluent onto farmland so that it could be used for fertilizer, and also assist in the reduction of the pollution of Okanagan lakes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's ridiculous.

MR. HANSON: It's really interesting that the person heckling the most at this point is the former Minister of Agriculture, who's going to go down in history as the worst Minister of Agriculture this province has ever had.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I know my time is coming to a close. The main points of my argument have been reasonable, rational and constructive. If the government were to heed and take notice — take a second look — the people of the province would be much better off, because we'd have 4,000 acres of wonderful class 1 and 2 farmland. For those members opposite who don't know what class 1 and 2 farmland is, it is land capable of growing the broadest range of crops.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now we're going to get another 40 minutes of agriculture.

MR. STUPICH: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs seems very anxious to speak in this debate from his seat. I'd be quite prepared to yield if he is willing to speak on his feet in this debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to hear what you have to say first.

MR. STUPICH: Apparently he would rather speak from his seat, which is his usual way of speaking in this House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair, ]

I suppose if there was ever an example of poetic injustice it would be the bill before us right now. The individual in this Legislature who in 1973 worked hardest to defeat the legislation setting up the Land Commission Act is the one to whom we are now turning over control of some 4,000 acres of agricultural land. Talk about poetic injustice. Talk about letting the fox loose in the chicken-pen. The one who was most anxious that we not have a Land Commission Act in the province is now going to have complete control of some 4,000 acres of the best farmland in the province of British Columbia; the best farmland....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who do you think has had control of it since 1976? Who do you think is chairman of the Harbours Board?

[ Page 1088 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, can we please continue with this debate, and may the member continue uninterrupted, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in 1973 that member spoke for several days — I believe the figure was something like 24 hours. Talk about filibusters: I imagine that was one of the records in the province of British Columbia. At the time he made no particular sense. I think he was not even trying to. He was simply trying to talk out the legislation before us setting up the Land Commission Act, an act that was intended to save the very minimum amount of good farmland that we have in the province of British Columbia. Of course, the best of it is in the area now owned by the B.C. Harbours Board.

He objects that he has had control over the B.C. Harbours Board for the last six or seven years, so what change is being made by wiping out the Harbours Board right now? As the chairman of the Harbours Board he has been operating under legislation that has been on the books of this province since March 1967. The purposes of having that land have been laid out long before in legislation. They were for industrial development. That is what it was set up for.

I have here a newspaper clipping from Tuesday, March 14, 1967: "The provincial government moved Monday to set up its seventh Crown corporation." I wonder how many we have today. I haven't tried to count them; I haven't had the opportunity this morning. We had very little notice that this bill was coming up. It might be interesting. I suppose the figure today might be 27.

In any case, some sixteen and a half years ago the Social Credit administration in British Columbia was setting up what was then the seventh Crown corporation. That was just the beginning of it. They set up the B.C. Harbours Board, with initial power to borrow up to $25 million. Of course, the government wasn't borrowing money in those days. The people of British Columbia were responsible for a lot of contingent liabilities, and this was one more contingent liability. The province of B.C. didn't borrow the $25 million, but the B.C. Harbours Board did have the authority in the legislation that was given first reading on March 14, 1967.

As well, it's kind of interesting to recall — not that I was in the House at the time; I had to look at the newspaper clipping to remind me — just where the opposition to setting up that Harbours Board came from in those days. Some of those members — one at least — are still in the House. The bill to establish the B.C. Harbours Board didn't pass unanimously. It was presented in the House by the then Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, and on March 18, 1967, he expressed concern that "'opposition to the provincial government's superport bill is jeopardizing crucial coal export negotiations.' He was speaking in a stormy debate that ended with the six Liberal members voting against the bill on second reading Friday." That's the report in the Province. The six Liberal members. The report in the Sun the same day, talking about the same date, reports that the five Liberal members voted in opposition to the legislation. I wish the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) were here to tell us how we got from five to six. Not that he was the one responsible, but I recall his telling us yesterday that one full-time is equal to two half-time. That really gave us a lot of help in that debate. Apparently something happened to one Liberal from one report to the other. As I recall, there were only five; there might have been six, I'm not sure.

However, today we're dealing with legislation to wipe out the B.C. Harbours Board. When it comes to transferring certain assets of the Harbours Board, I have no particular concern. The railway is going to be transferred to B.C. Rail; so be it. The operation of the port: maybe that can be handled well by BCDC. But when it comes to turning over to that particular minister 4,000 acres of the best farmland in the province, then I have to raise my voice in objection to the legislation before us. That minister made it very clear that he has no feeling at all, no desire that there should be any agriculture in British Columbia. He proved that rather forcefully in the short period he was Minister of Agriculture, for it was obvious that he had no interest in the Department of Agriculture, as it was then known. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who became Minister of Agriculture and served for a much longer period in that capacity, won for himself the record of being the only Minister of Agriculture in British Columbia ever to have a vote of non-confidence at a federation convention.

They're only expressing the attitude of government when they express their opposition to saving farmland; the Social Credit administration that ran this province from 1952 to 1972, and that has been running it from very late in 1975 — December 22 — until today, has shown, by the people it has named to the Ministry of Agriculture, that as a collective group, as a party and a government, it has no interest in agriculture in the province. They're proving it today by turning over to the member who was most forceful in his opposition to establishing the Land Commission in the first place.... Let's get rid of the agricultural land so we don't have this problem of dealing with an agricultural industry. One of the members — I think the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — talking just a few days ago about the four basic industries in the province, left out completely the agricultural industry, which at this time is still, I believe, the third largest industry in the province. They just don't consider agriculture to be of any importance.

[11:00]

Saving agricultural land is important to some of us, and it certainly is important to me. I was responsible for getting a resolution passed at a convention of the CCF in 1951, a resolution which at that time — or soon after — had the support of the current member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). It was a resolution in favour of the preservation of agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

After I was first elected in 19631 spoke on that issue as the Agriculture critic in the spring session of 1964. There was no interest on the other side of the House in saving agricultural land. I debated with the Minister of Agriculture at the time the importance of something in the neighbourhood of 4 percent of the total area of the province considered to be arable land, a very minimum amount, and yet the government at the time was prepared to do nothing to try to make sure that the land was saved for agricultural purposes. As a member of the opposition I raised it annually between 1963 and 1969 with the Minister of Agriculture. There were two different Ministers of Agriculture in that period, and each of them agreed that it was a very important problem deserving of some solution and did require government action, yet they hadn't decided what to do. For some time they were waiting for a Canada Land Inventory program to be completed. That kind of program is never complete; perhaps the scale isn't as much as it was at the time, but it will go on indefinitely.

[ Page 1089 ]

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who prefers to speak from his seat rather than from his feet, made some remark across the floor of the House about land being taken over by the NDP government. Not one square metre of land was ever taken over by the Land Commission. The Land Commission does have the right to administer land and does have an administration branch and control of some several thousand acres of land that were acquired by the NDP administration. When there were people who wanted to sell land, the Land Commission bad funds available to buy that land; it was one way of making sure the land would be retained for agricultural purposes, and the Land Commission's responsibility was to make sure that that land was being well used from an agricultural point of view.

In one instance, some 3,000 acres were sold by a corporation which recognized that it was not going to be able to develop that good agricultural land for industrial purposes with the NDP government in office. So they came to the Land Commission and asked whether or not they could make a deal to sell the land. A deal was made for some 2,000 to 3,000 acres in the Langley district. There were other smaller purchases where farmers, who for one reason or another had to give up farming, wanted to sell their land and were interested in selling it to people who were going to go on farming it, but couldn't find a ready buyer. In such instances the Land Commission said that in order to relieve hardship........

Many of those instances were in locations where the individuals might well have been able to sell the land at a price in excess of what it was worth for farming because they were near cities, However, the Land Commission Act stopped the land use being changed, even though the Leader of the Opposition, when the Land Commission Act was first being debated — that was one W.A.C. Bennett — told the farmers to hang on until the next election. He said: "With the next election the socialists will be thrown out of office and the Social Crediters will be re-elected, and then you'll be able to do whatever you want with your farmland. There will be no more controls. Anybody may convert his farmland to any purpose at all with the re-election of a Social Credit administration." That was his promise to the farmers at the time. Some of them didn't want to wait, others perhaps couldn't wait and others really didn't believe that any government would ever have the gall to change that legislation in the way that it was changed in this House a few years ago, and to change this particular legislation to turn over to the fox in the chicken-coop absolute control of some 4,000 acres of good farmland. I think a lot of them didn't believe that anybody would ever turn the clock back.

Even as much as some of the opposition members spoke against this legislation.... I've identified the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as one of them, and another was the hon. member for Okanagan North, who spoke at great length, and who at one point recited the story about the little red hen which was probably in the reader when you went to school, Mr. Speaker; it was when I went to school. That took up part of the time — anything at all to take time in the House. They weren't interested in talking about the need to save farmland, or whether there was any need; they simply wanted to fill speaking time. They wanted to show that they had no concern at all for the loss of farmland in the province of British Columbia, although we have such a small land base. We were losing that best agricultural land in the three most critical areas, Saanich Peninsula, the lower Fraser Valley and the Okanagan Valley, at the rate of 20,000 acres a year; it was being lost to agricultural production.

Mr. Speaker, you may remember what Lulu Island looked like when I went to university. I graduated 34 years ago. You may have had an opportunity; I don't know where you were 34 years ago. But at that time Lulu Island was a very productive area of farmland. There is little farming left on Lulu Island right now, and what there is is cut up into small patches. That has happened because the Land Commission Act, as many people said at the time we were fighting to get it through the Legislature, should have been introduced some fifty years before. That was the main criticism of it: that we were too late bringing it in. Of course we brought it in — "these socialists" — as one of our very first steps. As soon as we could we brought in legislation. As soon as we could we told the people of this province that we were going to bring in this legislation, that we were determined to save farmland in British Columbia. We took that move, as unpopular as it seemed to be at the time. There were demonstrations. They didn't get 40,000 people out in Vancouver, they didn't get 20,000 people on the lawns of the Legislature, but they did get 2,000. Not all of them were opposed to the legislation.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we were doing very well up to this point. Can we get back to the debate, please.

MR. STUPICH: Admittedly, most of the people on the lawns were opposed. I said 2,000; I know that is a very generous estimate of the number there. But there were also farmers who recognized the need for saving....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) is telling me how many there were in Surrey, how many there were in Delta. I wasn't invited to those meetings....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, you were. All the members were invited. Only the member for Delta had the guts to show up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, there will be no debate between members on the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, when you said there would be no debate between members on the floor, I was going to say, "Do you want to bet?" But I won't. I'll restrain myself

There were meetings around the province. As Minister of Agriculture I was invited to some of them, and the ones to which I was invited as Minister of Agriculture, I attended — every one of them. I attended meetings where there were 2,000 people, I attended one meeting in Keremeos where there were almost that many, if not quite. You weren't there, no, but a Social Credit member was there. The member from Okanagan North was there to talk about the Land Commission Act.

I attended a meeting in Kamloops with in excess of 1,000 people. I attended meetings at universities. The Leader of the Conservative Party at the time was often the chief spokesman

[ Page 1090 ]

in opposition to the Land Commission Act, one Derril Warren, who has since been swallowed up by the Social Credit organization. He might deny that he is a member but he certainly did some work very recently for the Social Credit Party. The government itself was so embarrassed by the quality of that work that they gave up trying to push through this House the legislation that came from the report he produced. I don't think there is any question that he has, if not joined the party, at least agreed to serve the party in some other capacity.

To get back to the Land Commission Act, there were large meetings all around the province. The one here at the Legislature — 1,500 or 2,000, whatever it was — had quite a number of farmers carrying placards in favour of the Land Commission Act. There weren't that many in other parts of the province; there was a lot of opposition, and a lot of it from farmers. A lot of that opposition was organized by Charles Bernhardt, the then president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association and also president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He is the one who led the march to Victoria in opposition to the Land Commission Act. He was the leader of the delegation that was invited. The Premier went out and spoke to them. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a delegation of some 20,000 here a few weeks ago, and the Premier didn't dare to show his face.

When the farmers showed up on the Legislature Steps to complain about the Land Commission Act, the then Premier Dave Barrett did go out and speak to them. Or tried to; they didn't give him much of a hearing, but he went out. During the course of his remarks he invited a committee to come to his office and discuss their concerns and discuss what might be done to allay some of their fears. I was part of that meeting. The president was there with some of his executive. After the delegation had their say, had the opportunity to say everything they wanted about what we were doing — plenty of time — they were invited into the Premier's office with myself, and we sat down and talked. They expressed their concern that what the government was proposing would take away a lot of the value of some of the farmland. Those same federation officials had forgotten that some two years earlier they had passed a resolution at their convention that they did not want development rights to be added to the price of farmland in cases where the government was buying farmland from farmers. Certainly individuals would like to be paid for development rights if they could be measured. But the federation as a whole said this would not be fair to the rest of the farmers. Some farmers would have an opportunity to get something over and above what other farmers were getting. This wouldn't be fair to farmers as a whole. So the federation took a stand against including development rights in the purchase price when the government was buying farmland. That was their position then. They abandoned that position when they came into office, of course. They wanted everything then. The Premier and I said to them: "This legislation is going through." We had the majority at the time — just as the government today has a majority and are going to push through Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, it may even be that one day we'll get the budget for 1983-84 put through the Legislature. That may be too much to hope for. But it's just possible that one day they'll bring the budget back and conclude debate on that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm cautioned by the minister to speak to the bill. He probably forgets that this is one bill of a package of 26 bills that came in with the budget. We were told at the time that it was a package — a restraint program. It's all part of the budget; it's all part of a complete package. The restraint here is that they're getting rid of three or four people's salaries. They've been transferred to somebody else, I suppose, but nevertheless the government is saying: "We're no longer responsible for those people." So it's part of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, how can one talk about any one of the 26 pieces of legislation introduced on July 7 along with the budget and be out of order — at least until after we have concluded debate on the budget itself, and it's up to the government to control that? They alone can say when that's going to come in.

However, back to the Land Commission Act. Again, I was hoping the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would come back, but he talked about the NDP administration seizing land. I told you earlier that not one hectare of land — not one square metre of land — was ever taken over by the Land Commission, although they have some 3,000 or 4,000 acres under their jurisdiction. However, the legislation passed by the previous Social Credit administration in March 1967 does have under its control 4,000 acres — that's about 1,600 hectares, if we want to convert. Every square metre of that 1,600 hectares was expropriated. So when we talk about who's going to expropriate land and who's going to take over land and who isn't, I would remind you that the legislation passed by the NDP administration did not provide for expropriation. As a matter of fact, it explicitly said that there would be no expropriation powers granted to the Land Commission Act. That was part of the legislation.

The legislation passed by the Social Credit administration that was opposed by only the five or six Liberals who were there at the time, depending on whether you read the Sun or the Province, did provide for expropriation. Following that, some 1,600 hectares of land were expropriated by the Social Credit administration. That didn't end it. One landowner fought for years against that legislation, and finally — I believe it was last year — was successful in getting his farm back. But there is still some 3,900 acres of land in that Harbours Board area that is being farmed. Its not being well farmed, Mr. Speaker. It's not as productive as it should be, and that's unfortunate. The reason for that is not because it isn't good land or because there aren't people who want to use it productively to its best advantage; the reason is that the Harbours Board has never been willing to enter into longterm leases with any of that land with the people who are operating it.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says: "That's not true." I'm not aware of a single long-term lease, and there were people who wanted to get long-term leases from the B.C. Harbours Board when I was in office as Minister of Agriculture. That was one of the things we were working for, and that was one of the reasons that we wanted to turn over to the B.C. Land Commission control of all of the land that was owned by the B.C. Harbours Board that was not needed for the purposes that the legislation originally came in for — providing the rail line and, shipping the coal. Perhaps 100 acres was all they really needed for that, but all the rest of the land could

[ Page 1091 ]

have been better administered by the Land Commission than it could by the Harbours Board. Now, of course, there are jealousies. The Harbours Board wanted to keep administration of it. I suppose one reason was that they might lose some of their staff if they lost some of their responsibility. So there was this question of maintaining empires. The B.C. Harbours Board fought against any transfer of control of this land. The Land Commission tried to get it. The Minister of Agriculture tried to get it. And the minister responsible for the Harbours Board under the NDP administration wouldn't let it go.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We hadn't resolved that argument by December 22, 1975, unfortunately. I wish we had. Certainly had we known that today we would have been dealing with legislation that turns over absolute control to the worst person imaginable in the whole province from the point of view of preserving farmland, there's no question but that we would have all agreed very quickly to turn the land over to the control of the B.C. Land Commission. Not that that would save it for all time. They've changed legislation before. When the Premier campaigned in 1975, he said he was going to wipe out the legislation. He backed away from that and lost his nerve, because he realized that it became popular,

When we were debating that legislation in 1973.... When we met with the farmers — or rather with the federation officials — in the Premier's office, we asked them: "Well, what do you want? We're going to put this legislation through; we have a majority. We believe it's important and the people of the province will eventually support it." They wanted some protection. They wanted to be able to farm, and they wanted to have some protection of their income. We said that we were going to name the select standing committee of the Legislature which was going to travel around the province, between sessions of the Legislature, talking and listening to agricultural groups all over the province to help us to develop a program that will make it possible for farmers to make a living out of farming rather than out of subdividing their land.

That was our intention. We said to the federation: "Maybe you'd like to have a hand in this. If you're prepared to hire researchers or hire your own staff or anybody, or to spend money in any way in an attempt to develop programs that will in your minds help make it possible for farmers in B.C. to make a living farming rather than being land developers, we'll match everything you spend dollar for dollar, up to $50,000." When the figure finally came in it was somewhere around $48,000 or $49,000.

They embarked upon studies. Out of those studies came programs: the Farm Income Insurance Act, the Agricultural Credit Act and the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. Those three main programs came out of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture hearings all around the province and out of the work of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in producing that program.

MS. SANFORD: The committee hasn't done anything since.

MR. STUPICH: No, it did do something. It did spend $3 million to arrive at a determination that food costs more in B.C. than it does in some other provinces.

MR. MICHAEL: Tell us about that, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm invited by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to tell about that. That is something he might better ask the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). It was something that was proposed, established and controlled by his ministry. I was a member of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture at the time.

I ~m going to cut the next three-year history a little shorter by saying that the success of the programs developed by the NDP administration in cooperation with the Federation of Agriculture — as a result of the work of the select standing committee — turned around some of the farmers, not all of them. I appreciate that the ones in Delta and Surrey are a breed unto themselves — some of them, not all of them. The person who became president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture the following year. Robert Reynolds, became one of the strongest supporters of the legislation brought in by the Ministry of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia. No one ever accused him of being an NDPer, although he told me that he did, on one occasion, vote NDP in absolute disgust at the lack of attention being paid to agriculture by the Social Credit administration. In any case, he was won over by our programs. He fought hard. He negotiated hard when it came to agricultural income assurance programs but, nevertheless, he appreciated what we were trying to do for the farming community in the province of British Columbia.

His predecessor, Charles Bernhardt, the one who led the march to Victoria against what we were trying to put through, against our legislation to preserve farmland in the 1979 campaign, was invited by us to appear on television in some of our paid ads, some of our productions, and to tell the farmers in his area what he thought about the agricultural policies of the NDP. At the time he was an active Conservative Party member; there are none in B.C. now. They all call themselves Social Crediters. They even attend Conservative Party conventions. It's a very close-knit group right now. But in those times there was a difference; there were still Conservative MLAs in the House — two of them. One of them is currently the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

We invited him to appear on television and tell the farmers what he thought about the results of the three-year program that the NDP administration had brought in with respect to agriculture, knowing full well that he was the one that led the fight against us in 1973. He had also cooperated with us in the introduction of the other programs we brought in. Not knowing what he would say.... He agreed to do so. His only stipulation was that he would....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that got to do with the bill?

MR. STUPICH: It has to do with agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The minister's questions may not appear in Hansard; that's why I'm repeating them. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development asks: "What has that got to do with the bill?" I've been trying all morning to remind him that he is the last person in the world who should have any authority over farmland. He showed so clearly in 1973 that there is nothing for which he has less regard in the province of British Columbia than farmland. So this legislation which is turning over 3,900 acres of the best farmland to his absolute

[ Page 1092 ]

control should not happen. We should not pass this legislation. The debate on the Land Commission Act is very relevant to the legislation before us right now.

In any case, Charles Bernhardt, when invited by us to speak about the NDP agricultural program, said only that he wanted to prepare his own script; he wanted no control; he didn't want any advice as to what he was going to say. Of course we accepted that. We had no idea of what he was going to say, but we didn't have to use it if we didn't like it; after all, these were going to be paid advertisements on TV. We used every one of them, because they were an excellent commentary on what we had been trying to do, and showed the change that had taken place in some areas of the farming community; not all of them, I admit. But certainly in the Okanagan Valley there was real appreciation of what we were trying to do. And in many other areas there was real appreciation of the importance of the Land Commission Act when we brought it in.

When the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was having its food prices inquiry, legislation was introduced in this House to change the Land Commission Act, weakening it, and making it possible for anyone who could get the ear of a cabinet minister in the Social Credit administration to get his land out of the land commission reserve. It was fairly simple: all they had to do was to get a cabinet minister.... In some cases, the cabinet ministers themselves brought it in, without invitation, and were able to get land out.

This other legislation before us — I've forgotten the bill number; I think it's called the Spetifore farmland legislation — is also weakening the resolve expressed by this Legislature in 1973 when we passed the Land Commission Act. I had hoped the Land Commission would have administration over the Harbours Board agricultural land. I would have hoped that the Land Commission would have had control over all agricultural land owned by the province of British Columbia. I would have hoped that the Land Commission would have had actual administration over Colony Farm; that is another area that is going to be lost to agriculture, in the event that the other legislation is discussed and passed.

We have so little agricultural land in the province. Today we're talking about turning over agricultural land to a man who filibustered in this House for days on end against the establishment of a program to save agricultural land — a program which between 1963 and 1969 his own ministers said was necessary but that they just didn't know what to do about it or how to handle it; they were waiting for someone to tell them. In 1973 we told them how it could be done. They fought and argued against it.

If they were turning the railroad over to B.C. Rail and the administration of the rest of it to B.C. Development Corporation, okay. But to turn over absolute control of 3,900 acres of farmland to the worst person in the province of British Columbia, with respect his attitude towards farmland, would be a complete abdication by this Legislature of its responsibility to protect a very valuable and very limited resource for the citizens of British Columbia today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we must oppose this legislation. I would hope that even on the Social Credit side of the House there would be some who recognize how bad this will be for the future of British Columbia. We must fight this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member for Burnaby North, let me observe that in this debate a great deal of latitude has been allowed to all members with respect to other pieces of legislation and other principles that have been discussed during discussion of that other legislation. Clearly Bill 25 does discuss Crown assets and their disposal, but if members could be advised to stick within the context and the principle of this bill I think our Legislative Assembly would be far better served.

[11:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do that, although it is somewhat difficult with a bill that has been brought into this House by the very minister who, as has been pointed out, led one of the longest filibusters in this province against the preservation of farmland. That is why it is most difficult for the official opposition not to discuss that area, because of the fact — if I may remind the House of the purpose of the bill — that the lands that were held by the Harbours Board will now be transferred to the B.C. Development Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I'm doing this for the benefit of people in the gallery who perhaps are not aware of the purpose of the bill, although I know you are. These lands will be transferred to the B.C. Development Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has the reputation of not being committed to the philosophy of saving farmland.

When in second reading the minister made his very brief remarks on this bill, he concluded with this paragraph — which I would like to quote for you now: "By reallocating this Crown corporation's responsibilities, we are demonstrating that current government policies are a logical continuation of philosophies which have been in place since we were returned to government in 1975." That is how the minister concluded his remarks on the bill which we are discussing, and therefore I feet that perhaps I will not be taking too much libert in the debate by referring to the remarks which the minister used in his introduction. That is why we are so concerned about the passage of a bill which will go through the hands of this particular minister, who reaffirms in his concluding remarks that this bill will follow through with the philosophy of the Social Credit government. That is our main concern. If this bill follows through with the philosophy of the Social Credit government, then all I can say is heaven help the public of B.C. who are so concerned today about the preservation of farmland.

I find it rather tragic that we have to be in this House today debating a bill which appears again — like so many of the Social Credit bills — to be innocuous, but if we go by the record of the Social Credit government and the members of their cabinet, including in particular the minister who has presented this bill, we have much to fear. We have much to fear from a government that ever since they came in, in their first term, have not shown any commitment to the preservation of farmland. And yet we are asked to pass a bill that is turning over almost 4,000 acres of good farmland to the very member of this House who stood here, as I well remember sitting across from him and listened to it....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The opposition have said at least a hundred times this morning that we're passing control of this land over to me. I'd like to inform the other side of this House that I've been chairman of the Harbours Board for the last six years and that I'm not chairman of the B.C. Development Corporation. Therefore I would have had less....

[ Page 1093 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the minister to discontinue that. It is not a point of order. Standing order 42 may be used if a material part of his speech in opening debate has been misquoted or misunderstood. That is not the case, and so it's not a point of order. The member for Burnaby North continues.

MRS. DAILLY: May I say, methinks the minister protests too much, which makes me even more concerned that that minister, who has become rather jumpy about this bill, is going to make the people of British Columbia very jumpy about the preservation of farmland. It is necessary, I think, to remind that minister and the members of the government to which he belongs of some of the concerns that have been expressed through the years re the Social Credit government's commitment to preservation of farmland. I know the minister was out of order, but his attempt at objecting is recorded now in Hansard.

Under the B.C. Development Corporation's ninth annual report, 1981, members of the executive committee board of directors.... I'd don't know, Mr. Speaker, but to me one of the faces here is remarkably similar to that of the minister who is sitting across the floor from us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I told you I was director, but before I was chairman. Don't you understand? I'll have less power. You wouldn't understand that.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I can understand one thing: that never before has there been a government which has showed such a politically heavy hand in all the operations of any aspect of this government in every area. Of all the people that make us concerned, it is certainly that minister, who is becoming exceptionally jumpy over the accusations, which we feel are well-founded, on his commitment to the saving of farmland. Thank goodness we do have a recorded Hansard, which I may remind the members of the House was only brought in when the NDP became government. I recall, as I said earlier, sitting across from that minister — and I am referring to the bill, because that minister is responsible for it, and we have a responsibility to look at the philosophical background of that minister re his connection with farmland, because that is the main point of this bill. We must have pages and pages of speeches from that minister, and I always find it ironic when what the tiny little group of NDP is doing here — just doing their duty on the floor of the House with a few little 40-minute speeches — is compared in the filibuster of that member over there. I would like to read into the record what he said, but it is so jumbled that I think it would be embarrassing to that minister if I actually went through some of his speeches word for word. I don't think I could do that to him. I don't know if this would really be correct.

We all have a lot to say on this bill, and it may perhaps be boring that minister because he is not interested in listening to the concerns of the opposition who represent many people in British Columbia. He unfortunately is here — he's the minister and he's responsible — and whether he cares for it or not, he must sit here and listen to our concerns. My big concern, however, is: will that minister listen with an open mind? All I can say is that maybe just once that minister will show the people of B.C. that he has an open mind and will listen to the concerns we have about preserving farmland.

I am trying to find a coherent paragraph that would be relevant to Bill 42, which the minister was attempting to deal with.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member who is on her feet suggested relevance. I've been sitting here listening very intently, as I've done all week, to that claptrap from across the floor, and I am having much difficulty on this very tranquil morning in finding any relevance in what is being said by that member to the bill that's before us in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. As I said before recognizing the...

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

...member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), we should be relevant in our debate. There is some principle involved with a particular section of this bill, but I am sure there are many other principles that could be addressed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. What the eye of the beholder has seen are the irrelevancies of the original remarks made by the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and that has been pointed out by the member for Burnaby North. What the member for Burnaby North is saying....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is now entering into debate, and I would ask you to....

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm showing that the relevance of the remarks lies in the lack of trust of the minister in statements he has made over the years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will have to decide that, hon. member, and I will ask the member for Burnaby North to relate her remarks to the principle of the bill before us now. I'm sure that can be achieved.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I will certainly do my best, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking of relevancy, as I was mentioning in going through the many pages of debate by that minister who is in charge of this bill, I must say that the Speaker in that day must have had an exceptionally hard time — as I know you do, too, at times, Mr. Speaker — keeping that member relevant But obviously the member has achieved some opportunities to speak with great irrelevance because there are pages and pages...which perhaps we can come back to later.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I always enjoy the interjections of that hon. minister because they, too, are so relevant to the remarks which we are attempting to make here. The matter of the preservation of farmland, which I think we have to concede — and I know you have been most gracious in conceding that — is certainly relevant to a discussion about turning over acres of farmland to a minister who spoke for hours on end against it....

[ Page 1094 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're not turning it over to me; I've had it since 1976.

MRS. DAILLY: I find it interesting that that minister continues to protest that this bill and the turning over of farmland has nothing to do with him. All I can say is that we go by the past record of this government, and we know the heavy hand of many of their cabinet ministers in everything. That is why we are so concerned. We are not the only ones who are concerned. There have been many articles written by a number of newspapers. Here's one from the Times-Colonist, I believe, that certainly cannot be said to support the New Democratic Party. I think what they do support, hopefully, are facts. As the minister responsible for this bill is becoming so jumpy I thought perhaps I would not relate to him for just a few moments, but instead to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). This article in the Times-Colonist says: "Anyone who still believes that the Social Credit government is committed to preserving farmland should examine Agriculture Minister Harvey Schroeder's comments on the annual report of the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission." It goes on to say that the report reveals....

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I guess as a designated listener this morning, I'm trying to find relevancy in the speech. The speaker keeps making comments which are not relevant. Could you please get her relevant to the item, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member for Burnaby North will continue, Perhaps some relevancy in relationship to the bill before us would achieve what the House wants to achieve.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to try and make this relevant. If the member will bear with me as I read through this particular editorial, I think he'll see the relevancy. I want to remind him that good farmland is being turned over to the jurisdiction of that minister's department. That's why I'm dealing with the matter of the preservation of farmland.

[11:45]

The article, if I may continue, says: "The report reveals that since 1974 the province's usable farmland has been reduced by 74,031 hectares by the exclusion of property from the agricultural land reserve." That's the record of the Social Credit government to date. "To get some idea of that loss, consider that Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich, Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney total 52,624 hectares. For the other 22,000 hectares, add in Saltspring Island and a couple of other islands. Of that substantial amount of farmland, 6,479 hectares were removed by the provincial cabinet against the recommendation of the Land Commission." If I can digress from the editorial, Mr. Speaker, that minister is in charge of this B.C. Development Corporation. The point I'm trying to make in this debate is that because of the overt political influence of Social Credit, and particularly members such as the minister in charge, on any jurisdiction that they should not be interfering with, we are concerned that if he has anything to do with this bill, we will lose our farmland.

"Of that substantial amount of farmland...." It continues with how many more were taken out. "Schroeder argues that during the same decade 34,928 hectares were added to the reserve. But according to land commissioner Ian Paton, most of the added property cited by Schroeder is Crown land in the interior, leased for agricultural purposes. That land does not, as Paton points out, replace the loss of land in the fertile Fraser Valley."

Before I continue again, there has been an interjection that this is a socialist paper. I'm sure that the Times-Colonist editorial staff will be most pleased to have heard that remark made by the Social Credit cabinet minister.

"'We've gained in the wrong places and we've lost in the wrong places,' said Paton."

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Omineca one more time.

MR. KEMPF: As one whom you know to respect the rules of order of this House, I stand on standing order 43. Again I say I have listened intently to the debate that's gone on by all of the members opposite this morning. Although some of it was slightly close to being relevant, the debate that's going on now, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bill 25, the Harbour Board Repeal Act. If we were debating the Land Commission Act or such a bill pertaining to agricultural land in the province, I could accept it. But I'd like you to bring that member to order under standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is very well taken, as the Chair has already indicated prior to recognizing the member for Burnaby North at the beginning of her address. Perhaps if the hon. members taking place in this debate could refer to the principle contained within the legislation, and specifically to the legislation, then we could carry on and maintain orderly debate. I'm sure we can do that.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I too have a respect for your position and this Legislature. But I also have an equal respect for the people of British Columbia, who are going to suffer from the consequences of turning this bill over to that minister. I will try my best to get back to the actual legislation, in deference to my good friend from the Crown corporations committee, who seems to find it not too pleasant to listen to the past record of the Social Credit government re the non-preservation of farmland.

The B.C. Harbours Board was created in March 1968 — this is to refresh the memories of some of the backbenchers — to establish the Roberts Bank superport near Tsawwassen. That board was empowered to borrow up to $25 million — later it increased to $50 million — for the purpose of developing harbour facilities in the province.

I am at this time relating specifically to the background for presentation of this bill. It was to promote the industrial development of the province in conjunction with harbour development in shipping southeast coal to Japan. Jurisdictional disputes between Ottawa and Victoria predictably erupted, as ports are generally considered federal under Section 91 of the Constitution Act. Subsequently the National Harbours Board took control of Roberts Bank in an agreement with the B.C. government, despite disagreement over ownership of the foreshore rights.

The Harbours Board controls the approaches to Roberts Bank through Delta and Surrey agricultural land. The board initially expropriated about 4,000 acres for the rail line and

[ Page 1095 ]

surrounding development. Another 3,500 acres lie outside the diking and, hence, under water. A 14-year battle against such expropriation culminated in the ombudsman's "Special Report No. 3 to the Legislative Assembly," called the Cuthbert case, in July 1981. Subsequently, the minister in charge of this bill returned title to the Cuthberts. I think this background information may help all of us in future debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

About 3,900 acres of BCHB agricultural land remain under agricultural production. These were the subject of a takeover bid by the B.C. Land Commission in 1975. Delta council this week requested that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development change the bill to allow this acreage to be controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Agricultural Land Commission, rather than the BCDC.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member speaking really has nothing to say about this bill. If she wants to talk about correspondence from the Delta council, would you table the letter, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has some difficulty determining the actual point of order, other than the relevance factor, but I am sure if the member would table at the conclusion, that would be agreeable.

MRS. DAILLY: It is our understanding that the Delta council has requested the minister to change the bill. Therefore, when I discuss on the floor of the House the whole matter of the Agricultural Land Commission, I cannot see how I could possibly be called to order by the members over there. By the way, it is interesting to note that it is not the Speaker calling me to order; it is the jumpy members on the other side of the House — and on this side. If the very area where the lands are to be put under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation is saying to the minister in charge of the bill that will do this, "Will you please not put it under their jurisdiction; instead, will you please have it controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Agricultural Land Commission?" then surely when I move back to a discussion of preservation of land there must be some relevancy in this debate.

I would like to continue with an editorial from the Times-Colonist which expressed great concern over the former Minister of Agriculture, whom I note is in the House now, and over whether there is a true commitment by the Social Credit government to saving farmland. It quoted the former minister as saying: "Eventually we are finding out where the good stuff is; eventually exclusions will no longer make good sense." That kind of a statement left hanging by a minister of the Crown in the Social Credit government certainly sends shivers right across this province. It does not give us any confidence whatsoever that the Social Credit government will preserve our farmland.

To continue from the editorial:

"Had Mr. Schroeder stopped there, people concerned about farmland preservation might have relaxed, reassured that the ALR in its present form is safe for generations of British Columbians to come. Mr. Schroeder however added that exceptions would be where" — and this is the important part; there are always the exceptions, Mr. Speaker — "a municipality's or regional district's needs for residential, commercial or industrial property outweigh the need for agricultural land."

I'm quoting from the editorial:

"That is a denial of the principle behind farmland preservation. Most B.C. cities and towns occupy the same flatlands as the best farmland. Carrying Schroeder's exception to its inevitable conclusion, burgeoning urban areas will ultimately overwhelm all adjacent farmlands."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you ask the member who is speaking to Bill 25 to speak to Bill 25 and quit just reading newspaper articles?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the overlapping interest has to be canvassed to some degree, but relevance is one thing.... I think we must remember that we have a principle of the bill, and while some reference to other aspects is always allowed, it must not become the centre of the debate. I'm sure the hon. member will bear that in mind as she continues.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just conclude with the final paragraph in this editorial, and then move on to another area. The concluding paragraph in the editorial says: "The bottom line is this, that we can look for a continuing sellout of farmland that will ultimately make B.C. virtually dependent on food sources beyond our provincial boundaries." That is from the Times-Colonist. I would be most pleased to read the reply from the minister. but I keep being told not to read from these articles. If I can find it, in all fairness I will read it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder you were such a terrible Minister of Education.

MRS. DAILLY: We want to continue, not discussing personalities of former ministers, but with the main part of the bill.

In this bill the Harbour Board Act will be repealed by cabinet order after passage of the bill. Another section of the bill mentions that the Harbour Board is dissolved and........

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're not dealing section by section; we're talking to the principle of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this bill, I'm concerned about the elimination of the board, so I'm just telling the House that part of the bill does dissolve the board and that the staff are dismissed.

I don't think the minister in his opening remarks — and I have them in front of me — really talked too much about the dissolving of that board. He didn't tell us particularly why; he didn't explain to us what was wrong with the present board; he didn't say if they were having problems. Actually, his opening.... It was amazing. That minister, who can filibuster — and I give him credit for being one of the biggest, loudest filibusterers in the province of B.C., if we want to give credit for that.... When I say the biggest Socred filibusterer, based on that minister's remarks.... As I said, they fill volumes and volumes of papers, and yet there isn't one coherent paragraph that can be read. And I regret it, because I'd very much like to repeat the remarks of that

[ Page 1096 ]

minister, but I've been told that we don't want to bore the House. I don't think I could possibly repeat all the remarks of the minister without boring the House at great length. I'm really just thinking, you know, of the reaction across the floor of the House. My concern is that that minister, who did show considerable ability at filibustering, was very strangely quiet in his introduction of this bill. As a matter of fact, I kept looking for exactly what he said. I have it in front of me, and as I go through it I am simply amazed that he would bring in a bill that in the opinion of the opposition has such import and yet leave it in such a very short time.

[12:00]

In this discussion of the bill, I want to reiterate that one of our major concerns is that there is high-productivity, class 1 and class 2 agricultural land in the land which is going to be turned over to a minister who has no commitment to saving farmland. Can you blame the opposition — each member of the NDP caucus — for wishing to discuss this bill? As we are all aware, the NDP has been known throughout North America for being the government which had the courage to bring in one of the first bills ever brought in by a legislature to actually preserve farmland. So would we not be remiss, not only to ourselves as a party but to the people of British Columbia, if we sat idly by here and simply let that minister bring in a bill which, if continued under his jurisdiction — as it will be — can at any time once again eliminate forever good British Columbia farmland?

That is why we are all going to be on our feet discussing this bill, and we certainly hope that the minister opposite, when he gets an opportunity after all our members have spoken, will feel that he most certainly is not the member to be in charge of this bill. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I cannot think of any other cabinet minister in whose charge this bill should be put. Obviously there isn't one member of the Social Credit cabinet who is committed to the saving of farmland. If they were they would not have sat idly by throughout the years since they have taken over as government in this province and allowed erosion of valuable farmland to take place. It has come before us, year after year, bit by bit, that there is no true commitment to the saving of farmland. That is why the people of British Columbia, I do believe, are very concerned, and I'm sure they are glad that they do have an opposition standing here and intending to repeat — even to the point of boredom, I accept — that this bill must be stopped.

I have not been involved with agriculture, but I certainly know, as I've said before, the value of good food, as everyone does, and I know the importance of keeping and preserving the land which will produce the food. I'm really concerned that the members across there — who find this debate humorous at times; I'm not quite sure why — particularly the backbenchers, will perhaps talk to that minister and to other cabinet ministers and express to them a grave concern which we're trying to express to them: the farmland of B.C. must be protected. I would only ask them to go back and attempt, as I have done, to read through some of the minister's speeches, day upon day and hour upon hour in this House, where he kept talking about Chicago and New York and ripoff artists. I keep going through here trying to find something relevant in all those hours he spoke; but we know there is no relevancy. We know that all that member was doing was sticking to a dogmatic philosophical commitment that it is more important, according to the Social Credit members, to see that land is developed so that people can make profits, rather than land being maintained and kept for the best interests of all the citizens of this province, which means in the development of food sources.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What is the point of turning over acres of good farmland for the development of housing when those people in the houses will end up with no food? Not only that, it's really pretty crass politics when any government can put profit before the needs of all the citizens. What are politicians elected for? I would hope it's because we are here to represent all the people, and not just a few in this province who will be able to make a profit out of land that should never be removed from the farmland. It's a very strong principle in this bill which we're fighting.

We have nothing personal against the minister in charge; I want him to know that. What we do object to in the minister in charge of this bill is his philosophical commitment to apparently not saving farmland, but for some reason to looking after developers' interests first. There is no point asking that minister to reassure us that this won't happen, because we have clippings upon clippings from newspaper editorials throughout the province of B.C. that have said over and over again, since the Social Credit have taken office: "What are you doing to our farmland?" That minister over there is not a minister who should be in charge of this bill.

I know that members of the government, including the minister, who have listened to me with such courtesy and kindness throughout this debate will be very pleased that I've had an opportunity to express to them my deep concern over this bill. Mr. Speaker, I'm quite serious, I do not believe that that bill should pass through this House. I think government owes it to the people of British Columbia to withdraw the bill, as the opposition has asked them to withdraw many other bills,

Before I make my final remarks, I would like to make a general statement. I'm really concerned that the Premier of this province, who obviously must approve, I would hope, all the legislation that comes through here, has not seen fit to be with us hardly at all for debate. To my knowledge he has not taken part in defending these bills. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we are not turning into a presidential-type government. As we know, in the United States the president, according to their constitution, only has to walk onto the floor of the Senate so many times a year, and then just departs. That is not our system. We have a parliamentary system. I resent very much that this parliamentary system is being eroded by the actions of that Premier.

MS. SANFORD: We have an obligation in this....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now we hear from the real leader.

MS. SANFORD: That's right! You keep talking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation in this Legislature to stand up and oppose the kind of legislation that we have been presented with as part of the package that was introduced in accompaniment with the budget. This particular bill turns over 4,000 acres of some of the best

[ Page 1097 ]

agricultural land that this province has to come under the control of the B.C. Development Corporation. We know that the 4,000 acres, which is now under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Harbours Board, should have been — and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed this out — under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission for years. It should not have been under the B.C. Harbours Board jurisdiction, and it should certainly not be put under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation, as this bill provides for.

When I think of B.C. Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker, I immediately think of industrial development.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right! The back benchers say, "That's right. Industrial development and jobs." And here we have 4,000 acres of the best land that the province has in terms of agricultural production going under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A minute ago your leader said it wasn't in good production. Why don't you guys get your act together? No wonder you're in opposition.

MS. SANFORD: It's not in good production. Mr. Speaker, honestly! I don't know what's the matter with this minister today. He's very agitated. I don't know if he hasn't had his medicine this morning, or what it is. The minister doesn't seem to understand the difference between the capability of agricultural land and the present management of that land. The fact that the land is not being managed well by the B.C. Harbours Board.... I understand that the minister is a member of that board, so I'm not surprised that it's not being particularly well managed. But the land is capable. It's class 1 and 2 land. It is the finest agricultural land in the province, and that land should not go under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation.

The back benchers agree with me. When you hear the words "development corporation" you immediately think of industrial development. If we lose that 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land to industrial development, then it'll be a sad day indeed for the people of British Columbia, and for the future generations of this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the land in this province that is capable of producing food is very limited indeed. Only 4 or 5 percent of the total land area of the province is capable of producing food. Some of the best land is in the lower Fraser Valley and in the Delta area — the B.C. Harbours Board land, which is under debate today.

The B.C. Harbours Board has been managing that land for a number of years. The farmers in that area, who are today involved with the Agricultural Land Commission, all say that the land is not being well managed in terms of the best interests of agriculture in this province. I'm assuming that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) himself has some concern about the way 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land is currently being managed under the B.C. Harbours Board.

When land is being leased for a short period of time, the people leasing it are not able to develop that land in the best interests of agricultural production. At the end of that short period of time — five years or three years — they don't know how best they are going to be able to develop that farm in terms of the future.

[12:15]

The Agricultural Land Commission has a number of acres of land that it manages. The Agricultural Land Commission people point out that in the best interests of agricultural production in this province that land should be under at least a 20-year lease. The short-term leases that the B.C. Harbours Board has allowed to happen over the years means that that land is not producing in the way it should.

My argument today to the minister and the government is that they take back this piece of legislation. If they are going to turn over that land, it should be to the Agricultural Land Commission, not to the B.C. Buildings Corporation or the B.C. Development Corporation or the B.C. Harbours Board.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Some non-elected board. Who appoints that board, I wonder.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, it's a non-elected board.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister suggest that the B.C. Development Corporation is elected? I don't know.

That's what's going to happen to this land: it's going to be turned over to the B.C. Development Corporation.

I would like the minister to tell us how many agrologists are attached to the B.C. Development Corporation. What do they know about the optimum size of land to be leased for the purposes of agricultural production? What does the B.C. Development Corporation know about the kinds of products that should be raised on class 1 and 2 land? If the agrologists, who now work so hard for the Agricultural Land Commission in giving them advice as to optimum sizes of parcels of land for a viable farm unit.... Where is the B.C. Development Corporation going to get that advice, if in fact the intention is to continue to lease that land for agricultural purposes? I don't think that is the intention at all. In the next few months you're going to have lots of time to answer all the questions we're going to pose to you,

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: This is the minister who spent day after day, long before those back-benchers were ever here, opposing the placing of any land at all into any kind of agricultural land reserve. We remember that,

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's getting quite disorderly.

MS. SANFORD: There are so many unruly members on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. They are always foaming at the mouth.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under section 61, regarding relevancy to the item being discussed, could we have the speaker be relevant, please?

[ Page 1098 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is always well taken. I'm sure the member can relate her remarks to the bill.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what I was doing. I don't see that that point of order was necessary at all on the part of the second member for Surrey. He fails to recognize that this land is much better under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission than under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation. That's what I have been doing, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this morning. The member was quite out of order in getting up to raise a point of order about the relevancy of my remarks.

I'm afraid that one of the problems with this government is that they cannot see that agricultural land which is classed I and 2 is better managed under the Agricultural Land Commission than it is under BCBC, the B.C. Harbours Board or the B.C. Development Corporation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you're so smart, why didn't you take it away from the Harbours Board when you were government for three years? More doubletalk!

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'll tell you. That poor minister! Isn't he in bad shape today, Mr. Speaker? I wonder what happened to him last night. If he had been listening this morning to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), he would have understood by now why it was that the government of the day did not ensure that that land went to the Land Commission. The member for Nanaimo said that that was one issue he still regrets to this day was not resolved before December 22, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to point out to the government today that agricultural land is too valuable to the people of British Columbia and to the future generations of this province to leave it in the hands of a corporation like the B.C. Development Corporation, which has attached to it no one who knows anything about agriculture, the value of agricultural land, farming....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, how many agrologists are in the B.C. Development Corporation? I don't know of any. There is not one that I'm aware of. I might be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know of any agrologists who can advise the B.C. Development Corporation about the use of that land. Obviously there aren't any agrologists attached to the B.C. Harbours Board, and that hasn't bothered this government for the past 11 years or so. It hasn't bothered the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because he sits on that board. Anyone can tell the minister and the Harbours Board that the agricultural land the 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've never even seen it.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. I love this. If you have not seen the land....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development as well as the second member for Surrey are always saying: "Have you seen the land? Have you walked on the land?" Mr. Speaker, I want to point out — I've pointed this out before, and they still haven't got the message — that I do not want used car dealers to tell me what is agricultural land and what is not. They're both car dealers. Because they are car dealers and have somehow seen the land, then they know all about fanning, farmland classifications and everything else.

MR. REID: I don't mind if you call me a farmer. I was one once, but I couldn't afford to stay on the land.

MR. SKELLY: You failed at that too.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the members please come to order.

MS. SANFORD: In order to have agricultural land managed well, you have to have a lot of people with a lot of expertise. The point I'm making is that under this bill this land is going to go to the BCDC. They do not have the expertise, nor do they have the interest in agricultural land. I'm very afraid that the back-benchers are right in saying that BCDC is interested in industrial development, and that it's going to be industrial development that we see on that 4,000 acres of some of the best farmland in this province. That is short-sighted and displays the kind of tunnel-vision I've come to expect from this government. The Agricultural Land Commission people, the GVRD, the planners who look all of the time at future developments and population predictions — all of these projections — tell us....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, they're doing away with....

Well do we know that too. We can't have any planning or any sort of orderly development — none of that.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I didn't hear that. If they're going to shout at me, Mr. Speaker, would you ask them to shout one at a time? I can't hear them all at once.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development will come to order. I think we've had quite enough outbursts from all members with respect to the debate being carried on. If members are finding time heavy on their hands, they might read standing order 20.

MS. SANFORD: We have to have people with expertise who know how to manage land which is as valuable for future food production as that particular piece of land is. B.C. Development Corporation can't do it. My fear with that piece of land, as well as with several other pieces of land — including the land which has been known as the Spetifore land, the Colony Farm, the Tranquille area — is that they're all in a very precarious situation at the moment because of the actions of this government and because of the kind of thing

[ Page 1099 ]

that they're proposing in this piece of legislation before us today.

The Agricultural Land Commission, the GVRD and the planners all say there's absolutely no need in the province of British Columbia in 1983 to take valuable farmland and develop it for industrial, commercial or residential purposes.

Are they reading section 20? That's good. Well, read section 21 when you finish that,

If we are going to ensure that we're going to have food production in this province in the future on the very limited amount of farmland available, we cannot allow land as valuable as this to go to the B.C. Development Corporation for management, because then the whole future of that land is jeopardized.

I want to talk for a minute about Colony Farm and the management that takes place there under another government corporation. B.C. Development Corporation is going to assume jurisdiction over this land. At the moment Colony Farm is under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They rent the land for which they have jurisdiction to the management of Colony Farm at this stage. The rental that is charged for agricultural land in the lower Fraser Valley.... If you wish to rent agricultural land for purposes of farming, you can do that from the Agricultural Land Commission. You can do it from people who own land, such as the B.C. Harbours Board. This land is being rented for about $175 an acre per year. Of course you can't farm on one acre. You need to rent far more than that. But $175 per acre per year.... As a matter of fact, the Land Commission people tell me that it rents at anywhere from $100 to $175.

If we have the duplication, under the B.C. Development Corporation, in terms of the charges that it makes for the annual rental of the land, then we're going to be faced with the situation such as the one we have at Colony Farm, where B.C. Buildings Corporation is not renting the land at $175 an acre per year, but instead is charging over $2,000 per acre per year. That's $1.4 million that Colony Farm has to pay to B.C. Buildings Corporation to rent that particular farm — $1.4 million a year is what that comes to. It seems to me that B.C. Buildings Corporation is ripping off Colony Farm and the operation that's taking place there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never!

[12:30]

MS. SANFORD: The charges are outrageous. How can you possibly justify it when the rates for renting land in the lower Fraser Valley run from $100 to $175 per acre per year, and B.C. Buildings Corporation charges over $2,000 per acre per year? It seems to me that what they're trying to do, by using that approach, is to discourage anyone from trying to make a living from that farm.

If B.C. Development Corporation takes the same attitude and decides that they are not going to rent out that land at $175 per acre per year or less, but instead are going to duplicate the B.C. Buildings Corporation and rent out the land for over $2,000 an acre, then people are not going to want to rent that land for farm purposes. The farmland will sit idle and the government will then say: "Well, nobody wants to farm it anyway; that is our excuse — we will put it into some other use. We will use the cabinet powers that we assumed in 1977 under a change in the Land Commission Act, and overrule the Land Commission, which says that this is class 1 and 2 land and is the best that we have in the province. We will overrule what they say and we will take the land out and that will be our excuse. No one wants to rent it anyway, no one wants to farm it anyway, because obviously you can't afford $1.4 million in a rental fee and make...."

Interjection:

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs obviously wasn't listening. What I am saying is that colony Farm right now pays $1. 4 million a year in rental fees to B.C. Buildings Corporation. If B.C. Development Corporation adopts the same charges that BCBC adopts, then obviously no one is going to be able to farm it. That will be the excuse that this government will use in order to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve and say: "No one wants to farm it anyway. We can't find anyone who is interested in managing this land which is the best agricultural land in the province. Therefore we will take it out and ensure that some of our friends who are interested in making a profit either through building houses on it or constructing commercial developments...." You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, sitting there allowing that 4,000 acres of land to go into BCDC.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you buy B.C. products?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Do I buy B.C. products? Of course I do. If you had any concern for farmland in this province and the production of food in this province you would not allow this land to go into BCDC right now. You would not allow it. Nor would the Minister of Agriculture sit there and allow the cabinet to take all of these other parcels of land out of the agricultural land reserve, over the objections of the Land Commission itself. As a matter of fact, he made representations to have agricultural land taken out of the agricultural land reserve. He made representations to cabinet, saying yes, overrule the Land Commission. Now we have that particular member in charge of preserving agricultural land in this province. Was a sad day for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Do you want to be told again this morning that you were the worst Agriculture minister in the history of this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that statement has been made a couple of times. It is a personal reference to another hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: He must want to hear it again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the member to discontinue that type of remark.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm known in the agricultural industry as one of the best loved and one of the longest-serving ministers of Agriculture in this province, and I'd ask that member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member could withdraw.

[ Page 1100 ]

MS. SANFORD: I guess he didn't want to he told again, so I withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal reflections are quite unparliamentary.

MS. SANFORD: I have a great fear as to what's going to happen. to this land now that we have this piece of legislation in front of us, legislation that puts it under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation. We cannot afford to have the Development Corporation develop that land for industrial purposes. We in British Columbia must fight to ensure that land which is capable of producing food remains under the agricultural land reserve. It is absolutely essential. We can change a lot of things. This government can remove the Human Rights Commission....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Under standing order 43 the Speaker has the authority to save members of this Legislature from tedious and repetitious argument. Certainly we have reached that point now. I would ask you to take some action under standing order 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that point of order totally. The member has related most of her remarks to the bill before us. I'll ask the member to continue, and relevance to the bill would be most appreciated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that standing order does not say anything about relevance to a bill. It says "tedious and repetitious." It may be relevant to the bill, but nevertheless it is tedious and repetitious, and I ask you to intervene on our behalf.

MR. COCKE: If the minister would search his conscience and his mind, he would find that each and every member of this Legislature has as much right to speak on a bill as any other. It surprises me that the government doesn't get up and defend its actions in this situation, other than on points of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that standing order, if I can refer to it, states: "...either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate...." The arguments have been made time and time again by other members, and I would ask you again, please intervene on our behalf, and save us from this tedious and repetitious debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That decision will have to be made by the Chair, hon. member, and not by a member of the assembly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, did you deduct the time for the interruptions of those members? They keep interrupting me over there, and I don't want to have any time deducted from the time available to me. Have you given me that assurance? Thank you.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of the reasons that the government is very uneasy this morning is that they never like to hear about agricultural land, its value and the need to preserve it. That's why in 1977 they changed that legislation to give them the authority to overrule a supposedly independently appointed commission that is supposed to have information available to it, through the agrologists' reports, about the capability of land in this province. They don't want to hear about that. They can do all kinds of things during this next four years. They can remove the Human Rights Commission, eliminate the Human Rights Code, up the taxes, increase the debt by the same amount that they've been increasing it all of this time; in other words, tripling the debt in the next four or five years if they wish. They can do all of those things, but....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Don't forget to have the time deducted, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, you've been sitting in the chair for some moments now, and I bet you can't guess what bill we're on from the remarks made by that member there. If you can, I withdraw my point of order, but I would ask the member to speak to the bill. Can you guess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as we're all aware, there is a relevancy matter in debates in the second reading stage, and I'm sure the member will continue to bear that in mind.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Forests has been abusing this House this morning a bit. He's been getting up on a number of spurious points of order, and I'm concerned that he's wasting the time of this House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I've been exercising my right as a member of this Legislature. I would ask that member to withdraw any accusation she has made to me of abusing the rights of this House. Would she please withdraw?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was your last point of order? You didn't even know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Firstly, all hon. members will have an opportunity to take their place in debate. Interjections serve no good purpose during debate.

On the matter raised by the Minister of Forests, the minister has asked that any accusation of improper behaviour.... If the member was putting such forward, would the member be good enough to withdraw? If not, to clarify the matter....

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just found it very difficult to understand what his point of order was previously, and that's why I made that remark. But if it has offended him, I wouldn't want the minister to be offended.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair thanks the hon. member.

[ Page 1101 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've tried three times now, and three times I've been interrupted by the Minister of Forests on a point of order, to make this point: that agricultural land, once it's gone, cannot be reclaimed in this province. As the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, you can't move agricultural land around. If you develop it for industrial purposes — as was suggested by the MLA for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell)...

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's what he said, that BCDC means industrial development.

...then we will lose that 4,000 acres. They can do all kinds of things that can be changed in the future. But once they eliminate prime agricultural land in this province, it cannot be recaptured. No government in the future, no matter how concerned they are about the pressures of population, about the fact that agricultural land is being lost in nearly every other part of the world that now supplies us with our food, that once that land is gone, once the land from agricultural production in places like Texas, California, Florida — and there's tremendous pressure on agricultural land in those areas.... Those areas are losing large sections of land capable of producing food. We cannot continue to rely on those areas to supply us with food, because there is going to come a time — and it's not going to be too long in the future — when the people who live in those areas are going to say to their governments: "Don't export any more food, because we need it for ourselves." Then in British Columbia, when a government, so uncaring and so lacking in understanding and appreciation of the value of that small area of agricultural land that we have, has turned another 4,000 acres over to the B.C. Development Corporation, has taken another 4,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land out of the agricultural land reserve, and has turned it over to their friends either for construction of houses or commercial or industrial development, it will be too late, We will not be able to produce our own food and we will not be able to import food. That's the kind of short-sighted attitude of a government that is more concerned about profits and taking care of its friends than it is about services to people or ensuring that we have land in this province in the future that is going to produce food.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, did you check to find out how much time was going to be added on to my 40 minutes because of the interruptions?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the members will be made aware of the time factor.

[12:45]

MS. SANFORD: An extra 40 minutes? Oh, thank you. Good. Then I can start on this next section.

The thing is that it's not just areas like California, Mexico and Florida that we have to worry about. If we look at the rest of Canada and at the reports coming out on agricultural land and Canada's future.... These are presented by people with some knowledge, with PhDs and all kinds of degrees after their names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they agrologists?

MS. SANFORD: They are agrologists. They are saying that Canada has virtually no undeveloped quality land that is suitable for agriculture. The agrologists are telling us that there is virtually no undeveloped land left in this huge country of Canada.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, sure. Let's take the 4,000 acres and follow the advice of this minister. We know where he stands on agricultural land. For about 15 hours in 1972 we heard what he thinks about agricultural land in this province. We know what he has done for the past 11 years in the B.C. Harbours Board with respect to the agricultural land down there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's only the socialist countries that can't feed themselves.

MS. SANFORD: Ahhh! That's just another little gem of wisdom from that minister this morning. He's so agitated today. I'm really quite concerned about his health. I know what his attitude is towards agricultural land in this province, but the way he's behaving this morning makes me wonder about his health as well.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MS. SANFORD: I had no idea that that minister was so talented that he could create all that agricultural land. I don't know of anybody else in Canada who can create agricultural land. Only that minister can create agricultural land. He's amazing, Mr. Speaker.

It is not good enough that this government takes 4,000 acres of prime land and puts it under the jurisdiction of B.C. Development Corporation, which knows nothing about agricultural land or the management of that land. We think the minister intends at this stage to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve with the help of his cabinet colleagues, who don't have any more insight into the need to preserve agricultural land than he does. That land will end up with residential, commercial and industrial development on it. We are opposed to the way this government is tackling that problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is doubletalk.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that's doubletalk, is it? Well, it makes sense to me that prime agricultural land should be under the jurisdiction of people who know something about agricultural land — namely, the Agricultural Land Commission and not the B.C. Development Corporation. We particularly know where that minister is. We have known that for years and years. The government should withdraw this bill and rewrite it. If they wish to get rid of the Harbours Board, then the only place for that agricultural land to be is under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission. Please, withdraw the bill and start again. In fact, they could withdraw all 31 of them along with the budget and we could start over again. I think the people of British Columbia would be much better off if they would do that.

[ Page 1102 ]

MR. MICHAEL: I rise to support this bill. I wish to spend a few minutes before adjournment talking about some statistics and refuting some of the statistics that were given by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) in his discussion earlier this morning. He was talking about all the negative factors — the doom-and-gloom factors — of this province in the production of agricultural products. One particular question I asked him across the floor was to tell us about the pork producers and about hog production. He quoted some figures that would indicate to the normal person on the street that things were doom and gloom there as well and that the gross production had decreased significantly. The way he read the figures, the average person would believe that pork production was down dramatically in the province of British Columbia between the years 1960 and 1981 or 1982.

I have been in my constituency area since 1959 and I have watched the area of Shuswap-Revelstoke, particularly in the Armstrong end of the area, grow very dramatically in the field of pork production, and I knew without looking at the statistics that what he was saying was completely incorrect. So I decided to go out and get some facts on what the statistics showed. I have a document before me that will show very clearly that the net pork production, during the period 1960 to 1982, was 5.3 million pounds, which on a per capita basis in 1960 was 3.31 pounds. In 1982, that 5.3 million net production figure has increased, not decreased, from 5.3 million pounds to 37.3 million pounds. On a per capita basis that shows an increase statistically from 3.31 pounds to 13.6 pounds. If that's a decrease I'm afraid we're all going to have to go back to school and check our mathematics.

I would suggest to the first member for Victoria that when he's looking at statistics, perhaps he should be good enough, because I certainly don't question the integrity of the hon. member, to check with his research department and ask them to explain the difference between net production and gross production. I'm sure that you will find, when talking about gross production, that in those years you're talking about all the pork that was being brought in from foreign countries and Alberta and slaughtered here. That's the kind of misleading information that the opposition was trying to give this House this morning.

Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration the time of day, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.