[ Page 6321 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Reports –– 6321

Tabling Documents –– 6321

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

Schroeder)

On vote 6: minister's office –– 6321

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Davis

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 7: ministry operations –– 6333

Mrs. Wallace

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that everybody in the assembly this morning would like to pay most special recognition to a very brave and dedicated young man, whose journey of hope and accomplishment was completed yesterday at Trans-Canada Mile 0. I think only he will probably ever know how difficult and how compelling his task was. He is to be thanked, he is to be congratulated, and I'm sure all members of the assembly wish him well with all his future endeavours — Mr. Steve Fonyo.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition joins in congratulating and thanking Steve Fonyo for his efforts, and for exemplifying the best in all British Columbians.

Presenting Reports

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report from your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report No. 1, May 30, 1985. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report that the preambles to Bill PR406, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, and Bill PR404, An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, have been proved and the bills ordered to be reported as amended in committee; and further that the preambles to Bill PR403, An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College, and Bill PR405, Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1985, have been proved and the bills ordered reported. All of which is respectfully submitted.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Milk Board.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to make a rather unusual request of the House. Unfortunately, I was not here at the beginning of proceedings, but I did overhear the government House Leader expressing his appreciation for the efforts of Steven Fonyo, and our leader responded. I would hope that the House, with leave, would accept a simple motion from myself that we express our appreciation and congratulate Steven Fonyo for his most outstanding accomplishment, and simply have a telegram delivered to him on behalf of all members of the Legislature. I think this would be the simplest, easiest way to express our appreciation.

MR. SPEAKER: With the greatest deference to the member and his wholesome attempt and intent, the Chair cannot digress from the practice of the House. Regardless of how highly motivated a member's motion may be, it would have to be placed in the usual manner, and with the greatest of respect, hon. member, this is neither the time nor the setting to make that particular motion. I regret sincerely, hon. member, that that is the rule by which the Chair is bound.

MR. BARNES: I certainly did not wish to quarrel with the hon. Speaker. This is why I asked for leave. I'm sure members would appreciate the circumstances and....

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding, hon. member, it is not possible to place that motion at this time. It is not possible to ask.... No, hon. member, with or without leave, it is not the time. However, the Chair does commend the member for his attempt.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
(continued)

On vote 6: minister's office, $188,723.

MR. PASSARELL: I've got three specific constituency questions, issues to direct towards the minister. I see his deputy is in.

Yesterday in your opening remarks you made mention of the high cost of packaged goods. It was interesting that last night I saw the commercial that you were talking about, for Goo Dog or whatever — they scrape out the inside of the hot dog and put chili in.

As the minister is aware, we have problems in the far north with the cost of milk and fresh vegetables. The question I direct towards the minister is why, as a society, we subsidize the cost of booze, alcohol, anywhere in this province, but we don't subsidize the cost of milk or fresh vegetables. I know that wherever you go in this province, Atlin or Kamloops or Vancouver, booze is the same cost because the government subsidizes the freight cost. Why can't we put some kind of similar program in the far north, let's say north of 55, where individuals could receive milk and eggs at the same cost as they do in Vancouver? I'm not talking about potato chips or those hot dogs that we saw in the commercial — junk food — but fresh vegetables. Why can't we put in place in this province a similar aspect of subsidizing fresh vegetables and milk as we do for alcohol?

I think it would be an easy program. We would sit down with the major trucking firms such as Canadian Freightways, Yukon Freight Lines, some of the minor trucking firms in the far north and CP Air, because CP Air is the commercial airline that flies into the far north, and develop some type of program with the government.

[10:15]

The second aspect that I'd like to discuss with the minister is not enough emphasis placed on farmland in the far north. Last year the federal government gave a grant to five women who live in Atlin to use the warm springs — we have

[ Page 6322 ]

an abundance of warm springs up in the Atlin area — for greenhouses. The federal government gave a grant for these five women to employ themselves and to develop greenhouses to sell fresh vegetables in the far north. It was a one-year program in which the federal government had paid for their salaries, but this year it's not in existence. I would like to see some emphasis placed on programs such as this that would employ local people to grow fresh vegetables in areas that currently aren't receiving fresh vegetables because of the problems with bringing the fresh vegetables from the south. As the minister is aware, a program such as this wouldn't be a major capital expense, because you're dealing on a very local level, using the warm springs that are already there and just building greenhouses over them.

This issue became very popular in the recent Yukon election, in which it became a major issue between the three political parties in the Yukon: using their warm springs and their land to develop small greenhouses. The Yukon faces the same problem of getting fresh vegetables and milk brought in from Edmonton.

The third issue I'd like to bring up is a letter that I received from an individual by the name of Walter Carlick, who was informed by the government that land that he was applying for.... He was informed very subtly by the ministry that nothing would grow on that land. I'll give a copy to the minister.

I'd just like to read certain parts of this letter. Mr. Carlick lives in Lower Post. He asked for some land for forage for his animals and the Ministry of Forests wrote back to him and said that that land wouldn't grow anything. Mr. Carlick, who has lived in the area for many years, gives examples of wild hay growing five feet tall in the area. He's been told by Smithers that nothing will grow in that area, and his application for a grazing permit was turned down because "insufficient forage species would grow there." Mr. Carlick has been able to prove that things can grow there. I'd like to see if the government could come to some kind of an arrangement so that individuals in the far north such as Mr. Carlick who have an idea to develop something, to grow something, can be helped. What we see in the south through the development of more and more farmland.... We call concrete jungles development, while in the north we're looking at development of the land too — not necessarily concrete jungles, but development for the residents of the far north.

The last aspect I'd like to discuss with the minister is the lower Stikine area. This is a very special area. There are very many hard-working folks who live in the Telegraph Creek-Glenora area, and over the years they've developed farmland in that area, because it is a special area with the climate in the lower Stikine. It's very conducive to growing things. But over the years there has been a policy of not allowing individuals in that area to receive land. I would like to see these archaic land laws thrown away so individuals could receive land.

In that immediate area, I propose something like granting 160 acres — a quarter section — to individuals for farming, and if they can develop the farm in five years, let them have the land without charging them exorbitant fees. When we get Crown land for residential aspects, we receive, let's say, two acres and it's anywhere from $10,000 to $12,000 for a residential plot in the far north. What I'd like to see the government do, particularly in the specific area of the Stikine, is provide 160 acres for farmers, and if they can develop the farm within five years, then it would be essential and productive to the individuals in the far north.

We could use something very similar to what they do in Alaska. They have a special program of this nature in which they encourage farmers in rural areas in the state of Alaska to develop farms for local consumption. I've posed a number of constituency issues to the minister, and I know that he'll be leaving soon on his marketing. Maybe in the meantime I could talk to his deputy with regard to Mr. Carlick's letter, and I would like to see something happen. Maybe when you get back, you can come up to the Atlin constituency and see some of the issues that I've posed, particularly the warm springs in the Stikine area for farming. I appreciate the minister taking my questions. Thank you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: May I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this morning are some very special people visiting us from one of our Surrey schools. We have Ms. C. Boles and 23 of her grade 5 and grade 6 students from Zion Lutheran elementary school. The fact that they're from Surrey makes them very special, but the fact that one of the students, Morgan Johnston, happens to be my grandson makes them that much more special, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to address the four questions posed by the member, and in so doing accept his invitation to come to the Atlin area. I would like to come when he is in the constituency. Perhaps we could compare notes and do exactly that.

The cost of food, particularly the cost of transportation of food to the north, has always been a concern, not just since my coming to the ministry, but long before. There have always been suggestions as to how to address the problem. There are two obvious ways, of course. One is simply to have central government pay the freight of the food to that area. The other way, since it is quite likely less of an impingement on the individual's choices and rights of selecting whatever food is wanted.... What society has chosen to do is to pay isolation bonuses to those who are in far-flung areas. I think the member knows, being a teacher, that there are isolation bonuses, which are intended to take up the stress of extra cost in outlying areas.

I will ask questions about subsidies for alcohol. I'm not aware of that, and it does belong in another ministry, so please forgive me for not having that information right off the cuff. But I will ask the question about freight subsidies for alcohol, because if they do exist, I see a distortion there as it applies to food otherwise.

In addressing the problem through my ministry, it's a little cumbersome in that traditionally the Ministry of Agriculture, before it became the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, had a mandate which was seen to be the provision of extension and production assists through to the farm gate. More recently it has taken on the responsibility of processing, but it ends at the wholesale level. Therefore, although we have a keen interest in the food right to the consumer, when it comes to financing — and budget is what we're talking about today — the mandate does not reach through to the retail level.

[ Page 6323 ]

On the second question on farm land, particularly in the north, Crown land is available for lease, and it's available on this basis: an individual who is a farmer, or who wishes to become a farmer, identifies land that he himself believes is viable and productive. He then makes an application. It is assessed, and it is assessed on the basis of what commodity could best be grown, not whether anything could be grown at all. I am informed by the Ministry of Forests.... By the way, they express their opinion on the productivity of soil as well. In some instances it reaches wide agreement that land is perhaps best utilized for the growing of trees rather than for the growing of other products. Usually a consensus is reached and on that basis a lease is either granted or denied. I have to tell you that almost monthly we have a large number of parcels of land that have been identified for farm use, and I would trust that the same could take place and should take place in your area.

The warm springs is an interesting project. I think that it could be utilized. Once again, you'd have to determine whether or not there is sufficient heat from the warm springs for a product under glass so that whatever additional energies are going to be required to make stuff grow in there...whether or not the cost of that would put the food being grown there beyond the cost of shipping it in. It becomes an economic question. But it certainly is a project worthy of some further research.

You say that land is not readily available in the lower Stikine. The same lease arrangements are available in the lower Stikine, and again, as soon as the land is identified by an individual, he has the option to lease, and that lease arrangement can have a further option to purchase. Therefore perhaps the individual might need to be a little more aggressive in his approach, and we as a ministry would certainly try to be as accommodating as we can, particularly where there is an economic unit in place.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not sure if they're all in the Legislature yet, but I have 52 students from Westcot Elementary School in West Vancouver, and I'd like the Legislature to make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's been some time since I've spoken out on the question of agriculture. We're into our second debate leader on this ministry since I left office, and I feel it's been very capably handled first by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and currently by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). But a couple of points were made in debate last Friday, I believe, to which I would like to respond.

One of them was with respect to the future of farm income assurance, and I have a concern that because of actions taken by our neighbours to the south the program may be in jeopardy. I was pleased that the minister did say that the farm income assurance fund is actuarially sound. I would hope that that argument was made when negotiations were going on. There are some other points, I think, that should be made; and hopefully they were — and well made. I rather feel that had the argument been between eastern clothing manufacturers or automobile makers, we would not have been so unsuccessful.

I think there is a case to be made for the farm income assurance program. Quite apart from the fact that it is actuarily sound, the formula itself encourages the producers to get as much as they can from the marketplace. It's not a matter of sitting back and waiting for somebody to give you something. It's not a subsidy program of the kind that prevails south of the border; and I want to say a little more about that later, in connection with another topic. If we were to examine the two closely, we would find that subsidies are much more a feature of United States agriculture than they are of Canadian agriculture; and we should not sit back and accept their criticism of our farm income assurance program.

Another point I'd like to make is that it's not a blanket program; it's not one that is automatically given to every producer. Once an agreement has been reached between the Federation of Agriculture on behalf of the commodity group and the Ministry of Agriculture as to what will be the figures for that particular commodity, it's then up to individuals to decide whether or not they wish to take part. You don't have to have fire insurance on your home unless you want to; you make the choice as to whether you'd be better off putting that premium in the bank each year or giving it to an insurance company to invest in eastern Canada. It's your choice. It is the same thing in the farm income assurance program: each individual makes a decision as to whether he or she wants to participate, wants to pay a premium. Certainly the premium does not cover the full cost of the program, but neither does it with crop insurance. To the best of my knowledge, the crop insurance program itself has never been questioned from this point of view.

[10:30]

Even if we were to lose on all of the arguments we could raise in favour of farm income assurance program, I think we have to consider the benefits that we get from it for our own people; and I'm not talking just about the primary producers. I know, for example — and certainly the minister will be well aware of this — in the Fraser Valley in particular, when the farm income assurance program was first introduced for the first commodity group, it was the dairymen; they desperately needed it at the time. That program itself put people in the Fraser Valley to work: small contractors building farm buildings, upgrading farm buildings, upgrading farm equipment. There was a real boom in the Fraser Valley that went far beyond the primary producers who were directly participating, as individuals on their own choice, in the farm income assurance program. So it is an important program; it is one that should be maintained. It is one that I think the Americans should be persuaded is not a subsidy program that leads to unfair trade. In any case, it's a program we need in the province for our economy, not just for agriculture. Certainly some of the primary producers in particular need it desperately from year to year; not every year, but when they have a bad year.

The other comment I'd like to make is with respect to a remark of the minister's to the effect that the cost of producing food is higher in British Columbia than it is in the States. Mr. Chairman, I'll admit that. The cost of living in British Columbia is higher, so the proprietor himself or herself must get a little bit more out of the marketplace, or out of the sale of the produce, if that person is to survive and is to compete with her or his American counterparts. That's just one matter.

[ Page 6324 ]

We often look at wages and say this is the culprit: it's what the generally organized workers are getting that pushes the cost of production higher in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, that is true: wages are higher in British Columbia. Once again, they are higher in British Columbia because those employees are living in an economy where the cost of living is higher. I don't believe that farmworkers, whether on the farm, in the processing plants, in the grading plants. or wherever, are really that much better off than are their counterparts on the southern part of the line. The difference, if any, must be marginal. Nevertheless, it's one of the items that enter into the cost of production here in Canada.

There's another item that's very significant: that is, finance charges. Mr. Chairman, I don't have the rates that are available in the States. But I do know that one of the very heavy subsidies given to agriculture in the United States is the subsidizing of interest rates. There is a little here; there used to be more. There's not very much now; there is a little bit left. Certainly that's one of the things that our producers have to take into account when they're considering their costs of production as contrasted to the American ones.

Property taxes. Once again, property taxes in B.C. are much higher than they are in Washington state; when it comes to producing apples, for example, it's a fact of life. It's not a case of blaming the present administration, although certainly taxes have gone up substantially since they took office. Even in the rural areas property taxes have gone up. It used to be 10 mills, then 15; now it's gone up again, to 17. That's a 70 percent increase in the rates.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Fifty percent reduction in assessment since 1975 — come on, Mr. Minister! You come, not me. Not since '75. You know if you double something and then take a quarter of it off, you've reduced it. But look at the base in 1975. There has been an increase in the assessments and a substantial increase in the rate of taxation, but beyond that the school tax burden on residential and farm property has gone up substantially since 1975, and is much higher than it is on the American side of the line. Whether you call it a subsidy or not, it certainly has to be taken into account when one is comparing the cost of production in British Columbia to the cost of production in the States.

The cost of irrigation water has always been a bone of contention. The B.C. farmers are paying substantially more for their irrigation water, water that we store in British Columbia and let go to the United States in accordance with their requirements, a water system that provides them with cheap power with flood control and that costs us about $1.5 billion that we're still paying and will be paying for forever, I suppose. We put all that investment in to provide all these benefits so that the apple producers in Washington State could have cheaper water than the apple producers in the Okanagan Valley. That's just one of the effects of us spending $1.5 billion. So let's look at that as well.

Let's look at energy, Mr. Chairman, the cost of hydro. Again, our own citizens are paying far more for hydro than the surplus hydro we're shipping to the States. But beyond that, the cost of hydro....

MRS. WALLACE: How about gasoline?

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to that.

But on hydro itself what the farmers — the producers — are paying.... And certainly if you look at the fruit production, there's a lot of electricity one way or another that enters into the product that is finally delivered to the market. And that electricity, that energy, is much cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada — in British Columbia.

As the hon. member for Cowichan–Malahat interjected, what about the cost of gasoline or diesel fuel or whatever hydrocarbon energy you're talking about? All of them are much more expensive here in B.C. than they are in the States, and to a large extent it's because of provincial taxes levied upon them.

I forgot to make the point with respect to hydro that one reason hydro is so expensive here is that the provincial government increased the water licence fees from something like $8 million income a year to $160 million a year — a twentyfold increase. And it's the people who pay for electricity who are paying those water licence fees. Let's not play any games with that; we know that that's the case. And the farmers are paying more than their share of it, because they use a lot of electricity for pumping water. So not only are they paying more for their water, but they're paying more to get the water where they want it.

All of these things add to the cost of production here in B.C., so let's not say that the costs of production are higher here in B.C. and leave unsaid or leave the implication or leave even the possibility of somebody assuming that what the minister is really saying is that we're inefficient in B.C. It's not that. It's all of these factors over which the producer has absolutely no control. The gasoline, the diesel fuel, all the motive fuels have gone up again — or not yet, but the budget produced in Ottawa promises, threatens or whatever that the tax will go up September 1. And as I say, the provincial taxes do add to that.

Supplies generally. In particular let's look at fertilizer, that we manufacture here in B.C. to some extent, and in other Canadian provinces, sell to our own producers at one price and sell to producers in Washington State at a much cheaper price. Now that's international trade. It's one of the.... Like selling our apples. We'll sell our apples cheaper in London or Hong Kong than we can here in Vancouver. So be it. I know that we can't do anything about that today. I know that we're going to sell fertilizer outside cheaper than we're going to sell it inside, but, once again, cost of production is higher here in British Columbia not because of any inefficiency or inability on the part of our own producers to do the job well, but all because of circumstances completely beyond their control.

The last thing on my list — and there are many others I could add to it — is transportation. Because of all the things I've mentioned — because interest rates are so high here compared to the States, because fuel is so high here compared to the States, because the cost of the equipment is so high here compared to the States, and because wages are higher here because the cost of living is higher; because of all those things — all of these items cost substantially more to B.C. producers than they do to the producers on the Washington side.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think when we talk about the cost of producing food here in B.C., let's look at what makes up those costs rather than leave the possibility there that someone might think the minister is saying: "Our own producers are inefficient."

[ Page 6325 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member for Nanaimo makes some very good points, most of which are entirely acceptable, but not all of which are entirely accurate when the FII program is subjected to scrutiny. We put forward a very strong argument — and we do put up a very strong argument — for the income insurance program, and one of the facets that we hold forward as being the most watertight argument is the fact that it's actuarily sound. Having made that argument, we then have to admit that it is actuarily sound; however, the premium is shared by the producer and the taxpayer, and to the extent that it is shared by the taxpayer, it is cited on that portion as being actuarily sound, yes, but on a subsidized basis.

That criticism is not just from the Americans but from the other provinces, not so much in the fruit industry but in the red meat industry. Our program is seen as being a top-loading program, which is objected to, as the member knows, particularly in view of the fact that there are architects who are putting together a tripartite stabilization program for red meats, which again is supposed to be established on an actuarily sound basis, the premium being established and contributed one-third by the producer, one-third by the provincial government and one-third by the federal government. The designers of that program criticize our FII program very strongly, once again, I think, in sort of a myopic fashion. In my humble opinion, the cost of production can be distorted by any number of subsidies at any level, whether that be the 6 or 8 percent interest money that is available in some provinces, whether that be subsidized water, as is available in the States, whether that be fertilizer, which is available in Alberta, or subsidized freight costs, which could be available in Alberta.

If you add together all — and I've made this argument with my counterparts in other provinces.... If you would please, gentlemen, give me access to, knowledge of all of the support programs that affect or distort the cost of production from day one through to the farm gate, and just let us match those, perhaps we wouldn't need any top-loading program. Would that be acceptable? Of course, as you know, that's a preposterous suggestion; it's not acceptable at all. The criticism is not only from the Americans; it's from our own sister provinces. Further, it is criticized by the now-implementers of the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I never thought it would come to this, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms criticizes the FII program because it is not available at the same level to every participant, and is not available without aligning themselves with a certain association. Criticism is just beginning to come from that area.

There's no question: I agree with the member that the FII program does take some of the valleys, some of the dips, and provides some stability. It's particularly beneficial to those commodities that do not have price-setting capacity of their own. The member cited the milk industry in the Fraser Valley as not only having required the program, but having embraced it dearly at the outset. I think the member also knows that it wasn't too many months later that the milk industry bought its way out of the income insurance program. It didn't have so much to do with objection to the program as such; it did have to do with the fact that the milk industry had its own price-setting capacities which other commodities did not.

[10:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I forget exactly the time. The reason I didn't say years is because I didn't know how many.

The other issue which the member makes is the fact that the cost of production in British Columbia is beyond the producer's control. That is right in the majority, but it is not right in the total. Every producer makes decisions on his capital investment at the outset, before he ever gets into the business. If he decides that he can produce any product — apples being one of them — on land at $25,000 an acre, when his competitor in Washington state pays only a fraction of that per acre for their land, then all of a sudden the cost of production is fractionally under the control, by virtue of the decisions which are made initially.

I am also aware of the distortions that occur with those who are retiring from other provinces. They come in, and they quite wilfully pay S25,000 an acre, not to grow apples on but to retire on. They grow apples just subsequently. It's an afterthought, and they still wish to be a part of the overall industry.

I agree with the member that there are many facets of the cost of production that are out of and beyond the control of the producer for sure, but there are some areas that are under the control of the producer. Our role, of course, is to try to offer the best advice to the producer, the greatest of expertise, so that the producer can be and is encouraged to meet the cost of production from the markets. That, I think, answers some of the fears expressed by the member.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Just very briefly, the minister has gone along quite a way with me on the cost-of-production discussion, and I'll go along with him quite a way, with just this one caveat, I suppose. I remember discussing the question of longevity with a medical doctor once. He suggested that one could look after himself in every way that he or she could: exercise, as the minister and I do regularly; eat carefully and wisely; refrain from smoking — try to do it second-hand too, if possible; and don't drink alcoholic beverages unwisely; do all those things, and that will make a difference of some 3 percent or 4 percent on your chances of living to a ripe old age. The most important thing is to pick the right parents, in particular the right mother.

Now what I am trying to say here is that when it comes to the cost of production of food in British Columbia, the most important things or factors are completely beyond the control of the producer. The marginal part certainly is, as the minister says, under the control of the producer. So we agree.

MR. DAVIS: The Speech from the Throne and subsequently the budget address made reference to aquaculture. I'd like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture and Food in respect to his responsibilities with respect to aquaculture or fish-farming, Also, if he would tell us more as to the advantages which fish farmers may enjoy in this province relative to conventional farmers on land, that would be much appreciated.

Members opposite have made something of the fact that agriculture is more expensive, farming is more expensive, in British Columbia than in neighbouring areas in the United States. I gather, in the area of aquaculture or fish-farming, we may enjoy a natural advantage which is unique: an advantage over, say, Washington and Oregon; obviously advantages over the prairie provinces because water quality and water

[ Page 6326 ]

temperatures are more favourable to aquaculture here than they are perhaps anywhere else in North America — indeed perhaps anywhere else in the world.

We face a new opportunity, and it's born largely of research — persistent development efforts in the Scandinavian countries, and particularly in Norway of recent years. I gather that the various diseases, the infections which have destroyed projects in this country and elsewhere in the past, are now largely overcome by careful feeding and careful programming of the early life cycle of the fish, which are kept in pens on this coast and in large numbers nowadays in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Water temperature, as I have mentioned, is important. It is certainly important in respect to rate of growth, the addition of weight to the fish and disease resistance. Our water temperatures seem to be in the optimum band, particularly in bays and inlets from the 49th parallel north perhaps as far as 54.40 or Prince Rupert. So we should see, as a result of recent technological and management developments, a new industry, an industry which will be a natural for British Columbia to develop.

I gather that there are quality advantages to fish-farming quality advantages over harvesting fish in the wild, so to speak — harvesting salmon, for example, in their so-called natural state. The fish generally are larger because they're fed in a more predictable way. They can be grown to a uniform size, the size which the market demands. When they are harvested, they can be immediately eviscerated or cleaned, and refrigerated. Quality, in other words, is better maintained as a result of fish-farming or aquaculture, as compared to trolling or seining fish offshore, cleaning them at some indefinite time and refrigerating them after some hours or even days have passed.

In other words, the product is more uniform, it's better preserved, it's easier to sell. This has been the experience in the Scandinavian countries, and the product of their fish farms sells at a premium throughout western Europe and in the eastern United States. Until very recently, the volume of their sales has been relatively small, but now they are rapidly reaching tonnages which equate with or exceed the total wild harvest of Atlantic salmon. So farming as opposed to hunting has gained considerable momentum in Europe, and it appears, at least on the basis of the experience of Norway and other countries' producers, that fish-fanning on the west coast of North America and particularly British Columbia may rapidly overtake fishing in the old-fashioned, wild or conventional sense.

It is farming; it is the raising of living things under controlled circumstances. The food is controlled, the water temperatures are controllable, predators are virtually nonexistent and the product can be taken at a time which is optimum, both from a quality point of view and from the point of view of marketing. In other words, we may well be moving away from the hunting of fish in the relatively primitive sense which has been practised on this coast towards the farming of fish, particularly fish of the salmonoid character. I think it's appropriate that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in this province has a major responsibility in that regard. There is a degree of parallelism between farming on land and the raising of fish, or fish-farming.

Farmers across Canada — indeed farmers throughout most of the western world — have enjoyed tax and other advantages over most other pursuits. I assume now that fish-farmers will enjoy tax, insurance and other advantages, substantially granted by the state, similar to those which the farming community has enjoyed over the years. I would like the minister to comment on this subject, and I would also like him to comment on the partnership — if I can call it that; at least the relationship — between his ministry as a provincial ministry and the federal authorities in agriculture.

Under our constitution, as you know, agriculture is a shared responsibility — federal/provincial. In this area, I assume that as fish-farming becomes part of the responsibility more of agriculture ministries than Fisheries and Oceans it, too, will enter more into this area of shared responsibility. I know the federal government has been giving certain tax breaks to fish-farming. I assume that those tax breaks will work to the advantage of aquaculture here on the west coast. But I would like to hear from the minister about this interesting new industry in British Columbia, about its prospects and about the developing relationship with the federal government in this important area of employment, future development and economic return to the people of B.C.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member is quite correct. Aquaculture is an area that has been identified as having one of the greatest potentials for growth, and we do have some natural advantages: the longest coastline and many of the things to which the member himself has already referred. The comment that I'd like to add to the remarks he's already made is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been identified as the lead agency in the development of this industry, and we're underway.

The announcement was just made very recently, and we're already putting together the staff. The major financial assist is going to come under a devolution agreement which is a part of the ERDA agreement. The ERDA agreement had, as you know, an ARDA complement and it also had a devolution section. Under the devolution section some $8 million has been identified for the development of aquaculture. This is a five-year program, and its scope is quite broad, including capital costs as well. We anticipate that the majority of the money would be spent in subsidized interest. In other words, it would be a low-interest loan, and it would be like a sinking fund, almost similar to what we have in the ALDA program.

The brood stock, which is, of course, the basis for fish farming — you have to start with something; you start with brood stock — has been developed. We have had some genetic advancement in brood stock. It has been made available and distributed. It is in the hands of private operators, and we are underway. There is a great potential in aquaculture.

As far as federal-provincial arrangements are concerned, Ag Canada is not involved in the aquaculture sector. We have moved through agreements in the industry sector and in the industry branch. Agriculture Canada is not yet a major mover, although I have to admit that our own participation is so recent that I think that perhaps later this year or next year we'll be able to involve Ag Canada as well.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to make just a few points. I don't intend to spend a lot of time, but I would like to bring forth some concerns that have been addressed to me in terms of agriculture in the Okanagan area. I guess one of the major concerns about this government's apparent commitment to agriculture can be highlighted best by referring to quotes

[ Page 6327 ]

from a few years back. I'll read two to you: "Agriculture in B.C. will never be a paying proposition." "Small farmers represent only 10 percent of the vote and really don't count politically." It's strange to hear the minister's accolades about his government's commitment to agriculture, and yet realize that those quotes were made by the Premier and the then Agriculture minister, Mr. Hugh Curtis. It does bring into question the validity of their commitment to agriculture if they're looking at it only in terms of the small number of votes.

[11:00]

One of the major concerns that have cropped up in the last few years is what has happened with regard to the agricultural land reserve. If we look back a few years ago, the government abolished the agricultural land use secretariat, which was a group of professional individuals who could make judicious and knowledgeable decisions on the best use of the different varieties of agricultural land in the province. Now that this committee has been disbanded, virtually all decisions on whether or not land remains as agricultural land are made by a committee of cabinet, of individuals who may not have any experience in land use. Certainly there is a concern that we've politicized the entire process of land use decision-making in this province. It's a very dangerous precedent.

As a result of dismantling the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, and as a result of direct decisions on land use now being in the hands of a small elite in cabinet, we've seen, for example, 7,000 acres go under the developer's shovel in the area of Golden; 626 acres removed in Langley; 132 acres in Prince George; the list goes on and on. A few years back — I think it was around 1982 or 1983 — there were over 70 applications for removal of agricultural land in the interior. I don't know how many of those were approved, but I do know that since I've taken on this position as representative of the North Okanagan, a number of orders-in-council for removal of agricultural land have been brought to my attention. This process is very quiet. There's not a lot of noise made about it, because people simply don't realize what is happening. The simple matter is that good agricultural land is very slowly being removed.

[Interruption. ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: That is rather bothersome, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I can hear you over here.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Good. I'm glad you're listening.

Good agricultural land is very slowly being eroded from the agricultural land base. One of the things that has been happening in the North Okanagan is that we're always running into a problem with respect to urban development and agricultural use. When you get urban development encroaching on agricultural land, forming urban pockets encompassing tracts of agricultural land, as the encroachment proceeds, that land becomes less and less viable for agricultural use. Slowly the farmer is just squeezed out. He can't make a go of it anymore, and, rightfully so, he wants to get out. The farmer can't make a decent living off the land. He simply wants to sell the land and get out, and I can't blame him. But I think that shows the direction we've been taking in British Columbia in terms of our commitment — or, rather, lack of commitment — to agriculture in this province. Very little — I think around 3 percent — of our total land base is actually viable agricultural land. Very, very little can be used to grow crops. The continual erosion of this land base will one day place us in very difficult straits in terms of feeding our population, especially if the costs of imports go up considerably in future years.

I think we have to review the direction we're taking in terms of the erosion of agricultural land, and certainly renew our commitment to strengthening the agricultural land reserve policies, putting more teeth into it so that we do continue to use that land for what it's best suited. Too much of it has been taken away and put under the developer's shovel. As a result, our agriculture industry is suffering.

In 1984 we had a $7 million reduction in financial assistance to farmers. On top of that the operating budget for the agricultural land reserve was effectively cut in half. There were reductions in farm income assistance programs. These do not bode well for the farming industry.

I'd like to move to a couple of specific concerns in terms of the Okanagan and just bring them to the minister's attention. I'm sure he has been made aware of them before. As a result of changing consumer demand from red wines to white wines, there seems to be a necessity of the changeover of grape varieties. Many of the local farmers in the Okanagan area grew red grape varieties. Just recently one of the major wineries enforced a force majeure clause in their contract with the many independent growers, effectively cancelling the contracts for the red grape varieties and telling them they will now have to change over to white grape varieties in order to remain competitive.

This has come as a very sudden surprise to many of the growers. They're undergoing, I guess, quite a difficult time as a result of this. I wonder if the ministry has any plans to assist these farmers. They are basically faced with ripping up all their root stock, changing it over to a different grape variety and waiting that period of years until it reaches productive capacity. It has the very serious possibility of financially damaging that agricultural community.

A lot of the orchards in the Okanagan are aging, and farmers simply haven't had the money to renew many of the apple trees and whatnot. They're becoming less efficient as a result of the aging. Does the ministry have any plans in the works to upgrade its assistance for the renewal of crop varieties?

Another problem that was brought to my attention is the high cost of land acquisition. This is a major problem for young people getting into farming. It's a very major cost facing young individuals who want to take a crack at farming, forcing them to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get into something that's a viable capacity. I wonder if the minister possibly could expand on any thoughts he might have in terms of assistance for land acquisition.

The high cost of borrowing money is also a major problem. Many of the orchardists in the Okanagan this year began removing their trees rather than having to face the prospects of very high costs and low return. They're very frustrated and concerned with the situation, to the point where some of them have given up. I think this is a real problem area that has to be looked at.

Lastly — I think it's lastly; maybe there's one more — a problem brought to my attention by some of the orchardists in the North Okanagan is the impact that grazing wildlife, particularly the deer, is having on many of the fruit trees. I guess it's quite costly to install fences of sufficient height and sturdiness to keep those animals out. Many of them are very

[ Page 6328 ]

frustrated with what to do in this regard. Perhaps the minister can explain any programs that might be of assistance to them.

The last thought I have regards what we do with our agricultural products. Years ago, the minister most likely can recall, the Okanagan area had a lot of processing and packing plants up and down the Okanagan Valley. These plants long ago closed up, as they were bought out by foreign interests and then simply closed to eliminate the competition. We don't have them anymore. This is an area that we certainly could expand in with a little incentive. I think that we develop a number of processing plants, canning plants, freezing plants, dried fruit plants. All it takes is, I guess, the right push in the right direction. I think putting in a little bit of tension, in terms of diversifying our agricultural products and getting into secondary processing of agricultural products, would serve to help diversify our processing section — our agricultural sector — and give a lot of stability to that area.

So I think I've pretty well hit on most of them, and maybe now I'll have the minister respond, if he wishes.

MR. R. FRASER: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in the galleries today, from Ecole Anne Hebert in Vancouver, we have a visiting group of grade 6 and 7 students. We also have 11 students from the city of Montreal who are visiting the students from B.C. I would like to say, before asking you to join with me in giving them a warm welcome to the Legislative Assembly here, that all of us are very supportive of the bilingual system we have in Canada. We are completely supportive in my riding, for sure, because in Churchill Secondary School we have one of the better French immersion programs. With that, Mr. Chairman and members, would you join with me in welcoming the visiting students from Montreal and Vancouver.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member for North Okanagan referred to a time when Hugh Curtis was the Minister of Agriculture. I don't recall that, but.... That's okay, it must have been a long time ago.

But we do have 20,000 farms, which would involve something in excess of 80,000 people who would call themselves farmers, so I wouldn't call them an insignificant sector, and I would think that they are worthy of certainly our support and our interest. I think that the number of dollars that the budget suggests again in this year is perhaps indicative, even in a year of declining financial resource, of the kind of support that this minister certainly has for agriculture.

The numbers in your blue book suggest that there are $74 million. In addition to that is the ARDSA program. In addition to that is the devolution program for aquaculture. So by the time you add the number of dollars that are available, we are looking at something in excess of $80 million — because, you see, the aquaculture is a five-year program, and you can only count less than $2 million of it in this year. But it's a continuing commitment to the ongoing stability of the agriculture industry.

The agricultural land reserve has not only exclusions; you should also, when you're looking at the orders-in-council, look at the inclusions. I watch them quite carefully. I think you've heard me say....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, there are dozens of them.

In any event, I'm concerned that we do have a production base. The technology is going through a process of evolution as well. It may well be that the demands for surface area will vary over the next several years. We do also have to have some regard for the other requirements for space. We not only need to eat; we need to have a place to live. We need to have a roof over our head — each one of us. Each one of us has a domicile somewhere and each one of our homes occupies some space, and not too many of us would like to give them up. Although I resist indiscriminate use of land — I would think we should have a good stewardship — nonetheless we have to make room not just for one of our needs, but for all of our needs.

[11:15]

The question of the wildlife conflict is one that rages and continues to rage. It's not only with the deer and the orchards. Any time you have wildlife that's utilizing the same space as either a commercial or private production unit, there's conflict. It will continue, no doubt. I would sooner be a proponent of a balance between the two rather than eradication of either, and therefore the people in the East Kootenays have found ways to control wildlife in their area, and it is through fencing. The ministry has assisted in some small way. In no way has the ministry ever accepted the responsibility to build all the fences that are necessary to keep all of the various life, wild or otherwise, in its little pastures. Nonetheless, we are concerned about it; we do listen to needs, and we have responded in many instances.

Assistance for land acquisition is not an area in which we have become active. The reason we have not is this: if you provide for assistance in land acquisition, in many instances it simply serves to inflate the cost of the land. The individual makes a decision based on his strength to repay, and if somebody helps him to repay, he will simply offer a larger price for the land at the outset. As a result, it's an area that we have sought to let the forces of the market dictate.

On interest costs, you're right that interest costs are unpredictable. Some predictability is injected through a partial interest reimbursement program. We have constantly looked at that program to be sure it is targeted. I'm not entirely sure that we are reaching 100 percent efficiency on it even at the moment, but it's an ongoing process that we are involved in.

I hope I have addressed your concerns.

MR. MacWILLIAM: First of all, I may stand to be corrected on that statement with regards to the Hon. Curtis, but it was made by him a few years back. The quote is in fact accurate.

The number of replies addressed by the minister brings forth a couple more questions that I would like to expand on. With regard again to the dissolving of the environmental land use secretariat, I was chatting with a soil scientist up in the north Okanagan who had basically said that this committee of individuals was selected on the basis of their knowledge in a number of different areas in terms of assessment of land use capabilities. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. I can't comprehend why the government would disband this group of individuals who gave good professional research advice to cabinet on land use decisions. I would like to ask the minister

[ Page 6329 ]

if he can explain why the government has disbanded this group of professional individuals, a consultative body that did an excellent job, and has taken that decision solely on to its own as a cabinet decision.

Let's face it: very few of us are experts in all fields, and I am sure there are very few individuals sitting on cabinet who know everything there is to know in terms of soil chemistry, agricultural land use priorities, et cetera. I really worry about a group of individuals who have a number of other agendas on their plate making wise and judicious decisions, however good and honourable their intentions may be. It is simply beyond the capacity of individuals to have enough knowledge in all areas to make wise decisions. I fear that decisions are being made on a political basis, not a logical scientific analysis.

Perhaps I'll let the minister reply to that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The ELUC secretariat was not dissolved during my time, certainly not in the year that we are reviewing, and certainly not in the two and two-thirds years in which I have been involved in the ministry; so I can't remain in order and discuss that particular question. Nonetheless, I have been given the mandate to manage the ministry as I found it and to make recommendations for change as I see fit. I take what the member says as accepted advice. Thank you.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman: is the minister in fact saying that the environmental land use secretariat remains an operational body that counsels the government on land use decisions at this point?

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You're just saying that you're not taking responsibility for cutting the secretariat. Okay, thank you.

Moving on to another point, the minister says that land use has many different priorities; one of them, of course, is that land has to be made available for housing. I don't disagree with that. Going back to my point, Mr. Chairman, that really only 3 percent of the land in British Columbia is arable land, by corollary that means 97 percent is land that could be used for other purposes, i.e. housing. The reason that agricultural land has been used for housing is simply a matter that it's a lot easier to develop flat land than it is to develop a rocky hillside. I think the minister would agree. The whole reason that the agricultural land reserve was initially brought in was to stop that erosion of the easily developed land. So I think the minister's argument is convoluted logic, at best.

Going to the minister's statement in terms of the fencing program for wildlife grazing upon orchards, is the minister saying that there is an established cost-sharing program, or is this just sort of done on an ad hoc basis? If it's done on an ad hoc basis, I wonder if the minister would consider initiating some form of standardization of application for assistance on this. After all, if you're going to give assistance to one, to be fair we should have an established program to make assistance available for others.

In terms of land acquisition, the minister said that it's been the decision of government to leave the cost of the land to the market. I would wonder if the minister or his colleagues have considered possibly a program of Crown land acquisition through the development of landbanks. The land could then be let out to applicants on a long-term lease basis, which perhaps would reduce this initial tremendous cost burden that is now being experienced. If we had a landbank program with long-term leases, people who at this point simply don't have financial resources to do so would be able to get into the market. Perhaps he'd like to reply to that.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: We discussed the availability of Crown land through leases. Perhaps the member was not here during that discussion. But it is available. The options are also attached to it. In other words, an individual can identify land for agricultural purposes. It is Crown land, and he applies for a lease. If the lease is provided, if it is agreed to, then that land, by policy, if it is not already in the agricultural land reserve, is then placed in the agricultural land reserve. Following that, an option is made available for that individual to buy. These are leases that are available on varying terms, and long term is one of the options. That kind of land is available.

I just smiled a little bit at the member's conclusion, when he said that 3 percent of the land is arable. I think what he means is that 3 percent is in the agricultural land reserve, and that about 5.5 percent of it is what we would call flat lands. Still, 95 percent of it is Crown land, much of it in forest reserves, and some of it in parks, etc. I don't have the exact percentage. but I would say that between 40 and 50 percent of it is available only to mountain goats. I take the member's remarks in good humour.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to enter into the discussion this morning from an urban perspective. It is usually my rural colleagues, or rural members of the government, who always seem to be predominantly interested in agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Pig farmer.... Gentleman or lady farmer. as they say sometimes.

One of the modern thoughts under discussion over the last few years has been the concept of what could be referred to as urban agriculture: the utilization of lands, either adjacent or inside urban fringes, for agricultural purposes. I think we often tend to just see those lands that are in rural jurisdictions as being the ones that we will utilize for farming purposes. Given that much of our produce that we consume in British Columbia.... Maybe the minister can correct me, but the perception is that much of it is still foreign-based; we get it from California or elsewhere. I think there is some discussion or desire by British Columbians to move more and more towards self-sufficiency if at all possible.

Often lands that are in more rural parts.... There appears to be much land available, but it cannot be utilized. Yet within urban areas we have land that is not used, just sitting vacant, that could be used for all sorts of purposes. Of course, if it could be used for farming purposes we could cut down costs, and there are a number of other things involved with that.

I'm wondering if the minister has any ongoing studies, investigations or thoughts about moving his department more into looking at urban agriculture. We've had the plot system, which has been very much a volunteer ad hoc kind of system.

[ Page 6330 ]

I am also interested in the minister maybe.... There's the whole new research into hydroponics — a fascinating area — which can be utilized on rooftops and all sorts of places, people starting to do their own things. Given that self-sufficiency is the objective and we don't have necessarily the land or the geographical regions or the climate to do it, maybe there is a whole new area here in terms of urban agriculture, hydroponic sort of stuff. We could move in this area and also utilize land that we often think is not possibly agricultural within urban confines. I wonder if the minister would comment on that interesting topic.

[11:30]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, there was a stronger program — that is, the program used to be stronger; it is not as strong now — on allotment gardens and the plots that you referred to. The problem with that kind of a program is that what is a wildlife conflict out in the wild becomes.... I almost hate to refer to it, but that's the fact: there is encroachment on the product by people other than the owners. That kind of security becomes a problem, and as I understand it, it was one of the dynamics which led to lower utilization of garden plots and allotment gardens.

But the member is quite correct. You don't have to have wide-open spaces with first-class land in order to produce. As a matter of fact, when I asked one of the producers in Holland what his ideal was for a site for greenhouses, he said he would love to have a huge parking lot from some supermarket gone defunct, because it has gradual slope for natural drainage. He was looking with a jaundiced eye at that kind of land surface. But the member is quite correct. We could utilize the backyards of our homes, our own gardens in each of the urban areas and quite likely grow nearly everything that we can grow in that area sufficient to feed the occupants of that space. No question about it. Good idea.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to share with the minister an idea that, when I was on the city council of Victoria, I was very instrumental in carrying out as a policy. Maybe we didn't advertise it as much as we should have done. We catalogued municipal land that was sitting vacant and wasn't being utilized, and we made it available to groups or organizations or individuals for a very nominal fee to utilize in the growing season.

We also — we weren't as successful with this particular aspect — encouraged private owners. For instance, in Victoria we have many pieces of land sitting vacant during this recession. We tried to encourage those corporations to say look, why don't you let that land be utilized. We could look at that in a global sense in terms of the ministry saying, "maybe we ought to find some mechanism whereby we can approach public and private owners within the urban scene as really seeing their land as underutilized or not being utilized as potential farmland within the urban environment." That takes leadership. I think it takes a program of support and promotion. I know many municipalities don't do that. I think maybe through the ministry or the UBCM there could be some connections between your ministry in trying to see why the UBCM this year.... Why don't you have a discussion from your ministry with the executive or the mayors and get together with the UBCM and say look, here's a potential concept for agriculture; why don't you all get into it? With help from your ministry we may be able to do a lot in terms of moving toward self-sufficiency.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member makes a good suggestion. I've written it down and I'll follow it up. Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess old agricultural critics never die. I couldn't sit here and let this debate go by without adding a few words to it. As I'm sitting here listening, I have a multitude of different unrelated questions that I want to ask the minister.

I was interested in the comments from my colleague from Victoria. It brought to mind a seminar that I attended the day before yesterday on alternative energy, where we saw some very interesting slides of solar greenhouses. It is possible; the technology is here; it's being done. Water for heat storage, proper sloping of glass, proper storage, north walls and so on, reflectors.... It works. And yet we find that the greenhouse growers in this province — the commercial ones — are almost facing economic ruin because of the high costs of energy. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture should be involved far more adamantly, far more out front, in promoting those kinds of alternatives for those people. The federal government is doing something. An example is out on the Saanich Peninsula. But I don't see this minister or this government taking very strong steps in that direction. I certainly would like to have a commitment from the minister that he's going to put some bucks into that, because I know he believes in it and it's important.

That's number one. Do you want to deal with them one at a time?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, if the member looks at the budget, there's $2.3 million designated in this fiscal year for the development of the greenhouse industry. We've started.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm batting a thousand so far.

Let's talk about agriculture and mariculture — that's another thing that came up. I want to talk about my friends the oyster growers. I have a lot of friends who are oyster growers. I used to live in the Ladysmith area; the minister and I at one time tramped around those oyster-producing areas in an era that is long gone now. For a long time those oyster growers lobbied to have the Ministry of Agriculture's name changed. They wanted it changed because they operate as a marketing board under the Ministry of Agriculture, and as long as it was just agriculture, there was no way their product could come under the minister's control.

Well, I give the minister credit; he changed the name, but that's all he changed. What those people tell me is that they're still sitting on a sharp fence there, partly in the Ministry of Environment and partly in the Ministry of Agriculture. They would very much like to have one minister only to report to. The Ministry of Environment is a huge ministry. Believe me, I know, as the now debate leader for environment. I don't think the Minister of Environment would really miss very much that little portion that deals with shell-producing fish in this province. I'm wondering when the minister is going to have enough clout in cabinet to get that transfer made, because I know it's very important to the oyster growers in the Vancouver Island area particularly. I'm very familiar with what's going on there.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I have met on several occasions with the oyster people and am aware of

[ Page 6331 ]

their aspirations and their goals, and indeed would like to help them achieve them. As of April 1, which is not too long ago, they were placed under Agriculture as the lead ministry. We have already met, not just with the oyster growers but with the aquaculture people, and although they have not yet reported to me as a group, they have formed their own council.

We have identified a list of priorities as far as programs: which ones shall we do first? We can't just do a shotgun approach. We've identified which areas we're going to approach first, and the first area we wish to approach is the farming of fish. We've already started on it. But the oyster people have come into the tent, and they are going to get their amount of attention.

As far as moving individual support staff out of Environment into Agriculture, there is not sufficient logic to support us starting our own biological people when Environment has not only the people but also the experience in that field. So what we have agreed to do is use their biologists in Agriculture — in their locations, under their designation and under their label as environmentalists. They have been made available to us on demand, which I think is very good.

Tell the oyster people they're in, and in their turn we're going to do the very best that we can for them.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems to me I've heard that song before. But I guess we just have to wait and see. It would seem to me that oyster production is a sufficiently large industry in this province that it could have, well, sort of full-time biologists working in that particular area under the umbrella of the minister responsible.

I have another subject. I'm not quite sure whether this minister has anything to do with special ARDA or not, but I know that ARDA certainly comes under his purview. I have written him a letter. It's in the works somewhere. He hasn't got it yet, I know, because I just dictated it last night, I think. But I want to mention it here because it is of quite some importance to the Cowichan Valley. For a long time there has been a plan there to develop something akin to the Polynesian village in Hawaii — a cultural village developed by the Cowichan Indian people. One building was put up on the highway amid some very ramshackle-looking buildings. Simon Charlie, a wonderful, culturally minded native Indian and a craftsman without parallel, owns the land in fee simple in that area. It's not band property. He has applied — again — for a special ARDA grant, and a grant from the First Citizens' Fund as well, to try to get this thing off the ground, to start extending it. It's a three-year plan that he's talking about. What he's asking for this year is sufficient funds to establish a gallery store, a museum and washroom facilities, plus the cleanup of that horrible mess that's around the original building. That's the first step. It goes on. The plans include a replica of an old hunting camp, a fishing camp, a seafood camp and then an abandoned camp, and along with that they're going to put in a salmon barbeque done the way the ancient tribes did it. It would have all the aspects of a really authentic centre of the native culture. I would hope that the minister will use whatever influence he has to ensure that that special ARDA grant is forthcoming.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I would love to pretend that I have all of that under my jurisdiction, but the fact is that a special ARDA having to do primarily with native people.... We in our ministry assist in delivering the programs. The money is provided jointly — federal and provincial — and the kind of projects where we become involved to a greater extent are projects like the huge irrigation project in Osoyoos, where we put, I think, 526 acres of reserve land under irrigation so that the band in the area could grow sufficient corn and alfalfa to sell to the local beef producers. That's where we become really involved. Your project I'd be very happy to look at, but I have difficulty from this distance in seeing how we would become involved.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly giving my support to that project in any way I can, and the reason I raised it under this minister's estimates is that I thought he might be sympathetic to it. I would hope that he would use his influence as a cabinet member, which is probably a little greater than mine, to try to get that project off the ground.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll look into that........

MRS. WALLACE: I've written to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), actually, with a copy to you.

MR. WILLIAMS: His first trip after China.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, the first trip after China, come up and see Simon Charlie.

Wildlife. My colleague from Okanagan North talked a bit about this. I want to talk about compensation. I would urge this minister to try to put some pressure on his colleagues for compensation for damage to farmers by wildlife. It's been argued that this is a natural hazard. Well, it may be to a degree, but it certainly isn't a natural hazard where those species are protected. It's sort of like the concept of the agricultural land reserve and farm income assurance, where society is asking farmers to preserve land and therefore owes them an assured living off that land.

Society is spending money to preserve certain species, and for good reason; I've no quarrel with that. But when that happens we shouldn't expect the farmer to pay the whole cost. I have moved amendments in this Legislature, and I have practically stood on my head on the floor of this House to try to get some compensation for farmers whose crops are damaged or destroyed by wildlife, and nothing happens. The minister sits there and smiles and nods his head, and I know he knows what I'm saying is true, but what is he prepared to do about it? That's my question. Elk are protected; swans are protected. We have areas like Somenos Lake in my constituency; we have areas in the Fraser Valley where there is a real sanctuary; and the farmers are feeding the birds in those sanctuaries.

[11:45]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll be very frank. We can discuss it, but the problem has already been discussed into the ground. The fact is that under the budget that we're discussing there isn't financial provision for compensation for the kind of thing you're talking about. The farmers, in talking with them, would be not content but happier if they were simply not thwarted in their own attempts to protect themselves. We have just recently agreed to release $10,000, I think it was, from the cattle industry development fund to determine in what ways they could protect themselves. That

[ Page 6332 ]

task force is out there doing its job right now. But quite frankly, all I can do at this moment is talk about it, and there are no dollars in the budget for it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has just made an excellent argument for using Wednesdays for discussing estimates in standing committee. You know, that's why Wednesday was left as a free day; and if in fact estimates went to a standing committee, there would be an opportunity to have input from farmers and ranchers. There would be an opportunity to have those figures changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on the minister's estimates....

MRS. WALLACE: I'm talking about the minister's estimates, and the need to increase the amount in the estimates, which can't happen in this forum, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are in Committee of the Whole, not any other committee. Discussion with respect to some other committee of this House is not appropriate when we're in the full committee of the House. On the minister's estimates.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we're talking about the minister's estimates, and the inability at this point to make any changes. The minister admits that we should be talking about this with dollars to fund it, yet there are no dollars there. It's unfortunate that we're in this kind of a situation where there is no opportunity to recognize whether or not that should be a priority.

One of the most difficult situations facing farmers today, I think, is their very difficult financial position. It's been raised during these estimates before; I know it's been raised by my colleague from Comox. But I would be remiss if I did not also deal with it, because that is a major concern of every agriculturalist I know. They're carrying a heavy debt load with high interest rates. What is happening, as a result of that, is that more and more farmers are being forced to go off the farm for additional income. They're going off farm for additional income in a very competitive and tight labour market. They are in difficulty. The minister will remember — again, going back to the agriculture and food committee — that we did a review at that time of the percent of farmers in each area that actually had no off-farm income. I don't remember the figures for other areas, but I know that in my own constituency, 95 percent of the farmers had off-farm income. The minister will agree that that was more or less the situation. Well, Mr. Chairman, the statistics show that it's much worse now. In the low-asset group — the minister will be aware of how that is classified — net off-farm income has increased more than 82 percent over the last three years. In the middle asset group, off-farm income has increased by 26 percent. In the highest asset group, which is nearly half a million dollars, net off-farm income has increased by about 3 percent. Even that group is now being forced to go off-farm just to make that interest.

Those families are going to be out of business. They're going to be bankrupt. I know that the minister will say the bankruptcy rate here in B.C. is low compared to other areas, but they are teetering on the verge. The minister's financial assistance programs are doing nothing to help that, because the interest reimbursement has been reduced; that's probably one of the reasons off-farm income has gone up. The farm income insurance program has been whittled down until that too is causing those kinds of problems among the farmers.

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Agriculture under the New Democratic Party administration spoke earlier this morning, and as he was speaking I got thinking about the programs we were talking about: the agricultural land reserve, the farm income insurance program, allotment gardens. Any new program introduced for agriculture in the last 20 years was introduced by that member for Nanaimo when he was the Minister of Agriculture. Subsequent ministers have done nothing but water down those programs, and the result is that those farmers are now in desperate straits.

I want to talk about a specific group of farmers, and that's the farmers in Pemberton. There has been a reluctance there to do anything for the small farmer. They have to come up with the 51 percent of income that has to be earned on the farm or they don't qualify. The statistics that I have quoted here about what has happened to off-farm income even with the large farms.... We're not just talking about hobby farms. We're talking about commercial farms which are not earning 50 percent of their income from the farm, and yet you deny those people any assistance.

That minister, when he came back from wherever he was at that particular time and went in there to talk to those people, did nothing to ensure that those small farmers got that kind of assistance. He wanted to be involved when the former Minister of Environment was involved with those farmers. He wanted to go in there and see what he could do. But he did nothing for those small farmers, because they're still out of bounds because they don't earn more than 50 percent of their income.... I give the new Minister of Environment credit. He brought in some changes to the guidelines that make it much more reasonable for a rural area. But it's still that 50 percent plus one for small farmers, and that's not fair.

While he's talking about Pemberton, perhaps he would like to tell the Legislature what he's proposing to do about the farmer quoted in the press very recently who has just discovered, now that the snow has melted, about the loss that has occurred on his land, the deterioration of his land. It's going to be more than the $10,000 limit. I wonder what input the Minister of Agriculture is having on that.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Quickly on the Pemberton area, it is an emergency program that determined the guidelines for support for those people — farmers or non-farmers, everybody in the Pemberton valley. The guidelines established for them are the same for the rest of the province, and it is an emergency program. It is not, after all, intended to be a 100 percent compensation program. However, I think the member knows that several farm units suffered, for instance, feed loss, and that that feed loss didn't fit the guidelines. We went to take a look to see if there was some way, under some emergency program or some discretionary funding we might find in the ministry, that we could help them, because this was beyond the emergency of real property. This was an emergency of feedstuff for livestock. We did identify the needs. We did come in with extra funding. We have assisted. We have not assisted in losses, but we have assisted in replacing the feed for that stock. Again, it demonstrates the ability and the willingness to look at it and provide some flexibility

[ Page 6333 ]

beyond the stubborn guidelines of an emergency program. We did that; we would love to have done more, but that's all that we were able to do at this time and we did that. Thank you.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: ministry operations, $69,177,308.

MRS. WALLACE: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this vote exemplifies what we've been talking about. The only increase in this vote is for executive administration and planning. The full-time operations and financial assistance programs are both lower this year than they were last year. I think that exemplifies what we were talking about.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: That is because of the introduction of the new programs, which of course the member will admit need some administration.

Vote 7 approved.

Vote 8: milk board, $290,406 — approved.

Vote 9: provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,036,670 — approved.

Vote 10: economic renewal, agricultural market and food industry development, $4,300,000 — approved

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.