[ Page 8675 ]

CONTENTS

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

Waterland)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8675

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. MacWilliam

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1985 annual report of the Ministry of Finance.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $188,992.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that so far the minister has said virtually nothing under these estimates, and I have raised a number of very critical issues in terms of the future of the agricultural industry in this province. One could assume that it's not a very high priority — that the minister is not all that concerned about the fact that the agricultural community in British Columbia is in a very difficult position. I raised the other day the three major areas of concern as I saw them. One relates to the financial survival of those farmers; another relates to the preservation of the agricultural base; and the third one relates to the impact that the free-trade talks may have on the agricultural community.

The minister has given us no indication that he is prepared to assist, except in an emergency — where there has been a severe drought or where there has been a severe frost or some such thing. But, Mr. Chairman, the problems of the agricultural community are far deeper than those that result from the occasional problems related to climate and weather. The problems are deep-rooted. We are told by the Farm Credit Corporation that in British Columbia the problems of the farmers are more serious than they are anywhere else in Canada, and everywhere in Canada the problems are serious. Severe financial difficulties are faced by about 20 percent of the people that are involved in the farming community. We want to ensure that the industry remains a viable industry.

When we look to this minister for any kind of assurance, we get nothing. We have a budget that has been cut back and does not even meet the increase in inflation. We have programs such as the farm income insurance program, which is also effectively cut back because there is no increase in the budget; there is no provision to add any further commodity groups, and there is no recognition that the costs of production go up each year. We have programs like the partial interest reimbursement program I referred to the other day, and we all know how that's been cut and chopped. It's absolutely essential that the government take some action and make some move to ensure that the farmers who are in such severe economic difficulty at this time have a chance of surviving.

The agricultural federation, through 11 different hearings throughout the province, wants the assurance that the farmers are going to be able to survive one way or the other. They passed at their convention a resolution calling for a six-month review period for all of those farmers facing bankruptcy or foreclosures. This could easily be done under the critical industries commission. Why could we not have a review period set up under that particular sector? Why is it that agriculture is not considered a critical industry, whereas other industries are? Why is it that agriculture is being abandoned? Why is all of that happening? You know, under the critical industries commission Brenda Mines was awarded a $6 million dollar bail-out. That's what it amounts to. And that's to preserve 424 jobs in that particular industry. That means that $5,400 is being spent by the provincial government per job because of the reduction in the copper prices.

What is it that the government is spending per job to ensure that the farmers do not go under? You know, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the 20 percent of farmers who are now in severe financial difficulty, if nothing happens — there is no review period, there is no assistance through any critical industries program, there is nothing other than the present programs that exist — then it is likely that a large number of those 20 percent are in fact going to be out of business in British Columbia.

If those 20 percent go under.... There is no doubt that that could very easily happen at this stage. The farmers know it; the Farm Credit Corporation knows it. The only person who doesn't seem to know it or doesn't seem to recognize it is this government and this Minister of Agriculture and Food. If those 20 percent go under, then we are looking at support payments through UIC or through welfare of $73 million, just to ensure that those farmers have some kind of a support payment in order to survive through the regular programs that already exist. Yet we have had no action on the part of this government regarding any move to try to ensure that those farmers remain in business.

In Alberta they brought in a $2 billion loan program. The same thing in Saskatchewan. What's happened here? They've cut the budget, Mr. Chairman. In the area of free trade, we have the minister saying: "Oh, we believe in fair trade." I don't know of anybody who doesn't believe in fair trade, Mr. Chairman. But that is hardly an assurance for the farmers who fear, as this headline says, that they are chips in a poker game.

[10:15]

The agricultural industry is the one which is likely to lose in any further talks regarding free trade as long as they are on the table and as long as they have no more assurance than they've had so far from either this government or the federal government. No wonder they feel they're chips in a poker game. They're the largest single industry which stands to lose under the move towards freer trade. The food industry alone.... It's not me saying this, Mr. Chairman; I'm quoting Gerald Geen, president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, who says that we stand to lose 5,300 direct jobs in that industry alone unless they get the assurance that they're not going to be chips in that poker game.

I raised three important issues the other day: finances, free trade, and the third one was the agricultural land reserve. I'm still very disappointed that this government has taken no heed of the concern expressed by the people of British Columbia that the kind of political interference in the preservation of agricultural land in this province has got to stop. They're paying off their political friends at every opportunity through that Environment and Land Use Committee, making decisions behind closed doors concerning the future of the very food we eat. They're dealing away valuable agricultural land. It's a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I don't know when this

[ Page 8676 ]

government is going to recognize that the people of the province are not satisfied with having the Environmental Land Use Committee make decisions in secret about the very limited agricultural land in this province.

Those are the three issues that I raised the other day. I would appreciate some comments from the minister about his intentions regarding those. What are they doing to ensure that the farmers survive financially? What are they doing to ensure that there will be land for future food production? It's not good enough to include 80 percent of the inclusions in the agricultural land reserve as the Crown grazing land, while you're taking out class 1 and 2 land: that is, the most valuable land in terms of production. What kind of assurance can he give us that if there are various agricultural matters that are dealt away as chips in the poker game at the free-trade table...? What kind of assurance can he give those farmers that British Columbia will not support it, will not allow it to happen? I don't think this minister can give us any assurance whatsoever, and that's why the farmers of the province are so concerned.

Is the minister prepared to make some comments now?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, going back to Tuesday, the member wound up the debate on this vote, and she was discussing, if I recall correctly, statements made by the MacDonald commission about his feelings on supply management programs. Also, she was lamenting the fact that the federal minister, John Wise, had not provided a surtax on potatoes imported into the country. I must apologize for both those people — both Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Wise — but I would suggest that the member contact them directly re their policies.

MS. SANFORD: What are you going to do about it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Member, I don't interrupt you when you're talking. I'm so sensitive that I lose my train of thought if you keep interrupting.

MS. SANFORD: I wouldn't want you to do that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the member is really creating a Doomsville attitude and atmosphere if she continues to talk like she is. No, the sky is not falling on the agricultural industry in British Columbia. The agricultural industry in British Columbia has suffered difficult times, the same as most other industries have in this recent few years. There are sectors of the agricultural industry that are in trouble. There are other sectors that are doing very well, thank you, and all of them have improved their management as a result of the cost-price squeeze which they've been subjected to.

Mr. Chairman, an actual survey was done by Agriculture Canada in March 1976 of lending institutions, and the information I have as a result of that is that the smallest number of farmers in financial difficulty is in British Columbia. The third-lowest percentage of farmers next to Quebec and Ontario who are in financial difficulty are in British Columbia, and the percentages that they give are nowhere near the doom-and-gloom figures that are presented by that member. However, that's not to deny that there are a number of farmers and people in many fields of endeavour who from time to time are in financial difficulty.

The member may be pleased to know that it is my information that in the federal House of Commons today a bill was introduced which I think will make it unnecessary for the different provinces to go on ad hoc individual programs. This bill, according to my information, will implement a farm debt review board and will provide for a 30-day stay on foreclosures with the option of extending these in 30-day increments to a total of 90 days. I think we should wait and see how that program works, and I congratulate the federal government for taking that broad Canadian initiative rather than having the provinces attempting to deal with it individually.

Yes, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture made some recommendations and did considerable surveys around the province. I have regular contact with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. As a matter of fact, their president is a very good friend and constituent of mine in the beef business in Princeton. I have regular talks with him, and I don't think the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has the feeling at all that this government doesn't care about them. I think they feel that they have good dialogue and good relations with the government.

The member continues to discuss the terrible things that will happen in free trade. She is assuming that all those support programs that we have are going to be thrown out, the supply-management programs that we have are going to be thrown out, and other jurisdictions will be able to keep theirs. That is not the case at all. There is an article in the Globe and Mail this morning in which John Wise and his counterpart in the United States were having discussions on the fact that you really do have to address the different programs and the different jurisdictions and make sure that, as free-trade discussions continue, we do have a level playing field, and that we don't leave programs of support in one jurisdiction and remove them from the other.

The member says that British Columbia agriculture can't compete and can't survive without the support programs that we have. Well, if the playing field is level, I think most of our agriculture community is very competitive. I know our beef producers are. In many other commodities British Columbia has an advantage, and the weather is not always to our detriment and to our disadvantage in growing crops. Some crops have an advantage here, and the productivity that our people have, I think, will put them in a good position to be competitive in those commodities, providing that we do have a level playing field. That is the objective, according to Mr. Wise and the federal government in our discussions with them of the way that these bilateral free-trade talks should go.

The member is very unkind when she continues to say that we are paying off our political friends by allowing them to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. I have sat on that committee for almost 11 years now, and we take our work very seriously when appeals come before it. We have to consider things other than strictly the capability of soils. Those are the terms of reference of the agricultural land commissioners. Their terms of reference are very narrow, and that's why from time to time we find it necessary, in the best interests of the people of B.C., to overturn and object to rulings that they have made.

Recently, for example, on Vancouver Island, not far from where I live on the Saanich Peninsula, we had to reverse a decision regarding land. It was quite good agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve. We reversed a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission. In this particular case, the

[ Page 8677 ]

commission had recommended that the land be removed, and we insisted that no, that land must stay within the agricultural land reserve. Now I don't know the political affiliation of the owner of that land, nor did I inquire, nor will I ever inquire; nor, I'm sure, will other members of the committee. But we do have considerations other than strictly the agricultural capability. We have the overall community to deal with including the agricultural community. I really do take offence, Mr. Chairman, at the allegations that we are doing our political friends favours by hearing their appeals.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that covers in a general way most of the things that the member has raised. I am sorry I am not going to go on at the same length that she did, but I would say that we in this government are serious and respect and appreciate the very large role that agriculture plays, particularly in a number of communities in B.C., in many interior communities, in fact most, where agriculture is really a very stabilizing influence. We have a pretty good relationship with those in the industry.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister continues to gloss over the problems that exist in the agricultural community. He doesn't recognize that agriculture is different from most of the other businesses and industries in this province. He doesn't recognize the danger that exists to the whole industry when farmers have to abandon their land and leave their equipment and start all over again in some other way. He doesn't realize the necessity of ensuring that we can produce food for our own use in this province, or he wouldn't be glossing over these problems in the way that he has.

He's congratulating the federal government for introducing legislation which might give this 30-day review period. It was the farmers of this province who passed a resolution calling for a six months' review period some time ago at their provincial convention, and yet the minister has taken absolutely no action in response to that urgent request. Farmers don't pass resolutions like that unless they are seriously concerned about what's happening. They just don't. Farmers are generally a very conservative group by nature, and they don't pass motions like that at their convention unless the situation is urgent.

What response did they get from the minister? They got a cut in the agricultural budget, that's what they got. They got a cut in their programs, they got a cut in field services, they got a cut in their farm income insurance, and they get a minister who glosses over the problems and says he has very good friends in the industry.

Then he talks about the agricultural land base and says that he's not interested in the political affiliation of those people involved. The government insists on having the cabinet hear appeals directly from people who have been denied the right to subdivide their property by the Agricultural Land Commission. Why are these hearings not held in public? Why do we not know the discussions that take place and the way in which the decisions are arrived at? They're not fooling anybody, and the comments made by the minister today certainly are not fooling me or anyone else I talked to with respect to the agricultural land reserve.

He talks about a level playing field with respect to the free-trade talks. We have just seen what our friends to the south have in mind for a level playing field, because what do they do? The very day that the free-trade talks get underway, they impose an impossible countervail against the shingles and shake industry in this province. That's the level playing field?

It's no wonder the farmers are concerned about what might happen to them during these talks. They're not well represented on the advisory groups that are advising our negotiator for Canada. They are not reassured at all by anything that this government has said regarding free trade, or they wouldn't be producing the kind of documentation that they have regarding the impact that free-trade talks might have on the agricultural community.

They're not reassured. I'm not reassured. A level playing field; fair trade. Of course, everybody wants fair trade. The whole industry right now is under a cloud. Whether the minister recognizes it or not, it's under a cloud. The people are concerned, both in terms of the finances and the future economic viability of that industry as well as the impact that these free-trade talks may have on them. There is nothing the minister has said that reassures me that the government is taking seriously the problems that exist out there.

For that reason, I'm going to move at this stage that vote 5 be reduced by the amount of $1 in view of the fact that the government has given inadequate assistance to farmers in the current financial farm crisis; that the government has allowed the agricultural land reserve to be eroded; and that the government has failed to provide assurances to the agricultural community that agriculture will not be adversely affected by a free-trade agreement. That motion is seconded by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Thank you.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[10:30]

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: On behalf of the farmers and ranchers of British Columbia, I'm pleased to second that motion. Let me tell you, this minister and the ministers before him in that government have treated the farmers and ranchers as second-class citizens in this province. He talks about the current president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, a constituent of his. I know that person very well too. While he may be a friend of the minister's, he is mightily disappointed in that minister's ability to deal with the Agriculture portfolio.

The agricultural community over the last ten and a half years have had a series of Agriculture ministers, one after the other after the other. You talk about a rotating cabinet; it's more like a whirling dervish, as far as the agriculture people are concerned when dealing with ministers. We've gone through six ministers in that period of time. They just get to know one and he's gone. Here we are now with a new minister, and again they have to train him. That's their attitude, Mr. Chairman. The minister laughs, but that's the attitude of the agricultural community. They get a minister, and they try to explain to him the problems that agriculture faces, and why they need the programs. The only time that any Minister of Agriculture has ever been booed by the Federation of Agriculture was when a minister from this government was. Normally the farmers are very supportive of that government, but I actually sat in a federation meeting and heard a Minister of Agriculture booed. They're finding that rather than improving, they seem to be getting less and less knowledgeable about agriculture.

In March of this year I received a communication from an organization to which I've belonged for a long time, the B.C.

[ Page 8678 ]

Women's Institute. This is their regular production, monthly paper. They have an article in there entitled "Agriculture in Crisis." They were able to send ten delegates from B.C. to the second national farm women's conference held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The report on this conference is entitled "Agriculture in Crisis." These are farm women, who should know what they're talking about, who do know what they're talking about. Farm women contribute a very great deal to the agricultural community. They in fact are subsidizing the food that we eat, because they work for nothing. There was a survey done of farm women, and it was determined that the sort of work that they do.... Of course, they do the housework; they look after the family; they assist in feeding and watering and caring for farm animals, harvesting crops, grading and preparing products for sale and keeping farm financial records, as well as milking and helping with animal births, doctoring, all those things. A calculation as to the work of the farm woman has indicated that she's worth $922.90 per week. That's free labour that's going into subsidizing the food in this province, without any consideration. A study that was done recently indicates, according to this article, that 17 families per day are leaving the farm. There are 400,000 farms in Canada, and an average net income of $13,000, which is well below the poverty level. What this conference called for, Mr. Chairman, was that there should be a debt moratorium: farm creditors arrangement legislation, lower interest rates. We realize, and wanted politicians and the public to know, that the financial situation of the family farm would not improve until the farmer received a fair price for his commodity. What do we get? We get the minister saying that he's very happy that the federal government have introduced a 30-day moratorium.

Back in 1982, when I was still the spokesperson for Agriculture, I received a call from a farmer up in Tappen. He had an $80,000 mortgage, and at that time he was paying 24 percent. He was in desperate straits. He phoned me because he had heard something about a federal act that had put a moratorium on farm debt. I made inquiries about that: it was called Bill C12. It was introduced back in 1929; that was right at the heart of the Depression. Its original introduction covered only the prairie provinces. But because the situation got so bad in British Columbia, particularly with the fruit growers, it was amended in 1938 to provide a moratorium for British Columbia farmers, and the B.C. proposals were actually introduced on June 30, 1939. It was considered that that act was still on the books federally and could be reinitiated, and steps were taken in Ottawa to try to have that act used to help farmers in British Columbia. Now we have this minister standing up and bragging about the fact that the federal government has now, four years later, brought in a watered-down version of an act that is already on the order paper.

That's not good enough. Farmers are in dire straits. Just yesterday I received in my mail a letter that gives us some pretty dire figures. This is from the Farm Credit Corporation, and it indicates that a quarter of all Canadian commercial farmers are in severe financial difficulty. Twenty-one percent of Farm Credit Corporation loans are in arrears; 10,000 farmers are technically insolvent. The number of farm bankruptcies has quadrupled since 1979 to over 500 a year in 1984-85. The value of Canadian farm equity fell to $3 billion in three years, while total farm debt remains at over $21 billion.

This is not just a financial crisis. It is a social crisis for farmers because it places chronic psychological stress on the rural population. Another survey shows that, particularly on the Prairies where they have this problem with grain prices as well now, farmers frequently experience headaches, back pains, insomnia, depression and many behavioural problems. The stress can be so severe that it can even lead to violence and death. In Ontario, suicide claims more lives on farms than accidents involving machinery, animals or silo gas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture for the province of British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: As far as I know, B.C. is part of Canada, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but we are dealing with his responsibility within the province of British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: And he is responsible for British Columbia farmers, and they are included in these statistics. If he doesn't do something about the situation here in British Columbia, we're going to have the same situation developing here as has developed on the Prairies and is developing in Ontario. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it isn't already here. I know that the psychological stress is here because I know a great many farmers personally, and I know the kinds of experiences they are going through. Even though I am no longer the agriculture spokesperson, I am still getting calls from farmers I have known over the years who are in a desperate situation because they are losing their animals, their equipment, their land. When their life falls under their feet like that, you can understand what the psychological stress is.

I wonder if the minister is aware that farming is the largest employer in British Columbia. If you take the employment, basing it on total hours worked over average hours, you will find that farming employs more people than forestry or mining. It is a large employer. It has a large effect on subsidiary industries. There are a lot of people employed in agriculture, and if the farm goes down the tube, we're going to find more and more people on the rolls of the unemployed, looking for food. That is the situation that this minister is helping to create by his inaction.

You know, if there isn't a financial crisis in British Columbia, why then did the B.C. Federation of Agriculture take the time and trouble to travel this province to find out directly from farmers in the field in various areas what their position was. That's what the farm community did last spring. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture went around to many local areas. They came to my own area of Duncan. I attended, along with the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), to hear just what those farmers had to say. It is a sad tale. They are begging for support programs. They are begging for reestablishment of the farm income assurance program to the same levels that it used to be at so that it will provide an adequate return. They want that program left in place. They are concerned about the loss of that program through federal initiatives, and they don't want to go under federal stabilization programs. They want to keep their farm income assurance program. They are concerned as to whether or not that is going to happen.

[10:45]

[ Page 8679 ]

What they really want is to get a price for food in the marketplace that would ensure they had a fair return. That doesn't happen. I know that when you go out and buy food, you think it's terribly expensive, but in fact those farmers are not getting a fair return. They're not getting the kind of return they should. I talked earlier about the kind of subsidization from the farm wife: the amount of free labour, the long hours that go in. They're not getting an equitable return. Somehow we have to provide people with incomes that allow them to purchase food at a price that's fair, not a cheap food policy. We don't expect the wife of someone who works in the forest industry to go out and work beside him in the mill for free every other day in order to keep the price of lumber down, but that's really what's happening in the agricultural industry. That minister hasn't looked at that problem at all.

Farmland: in spite of what that minister says, there has been erosion of the agricultural land reserve, and it has been done for political reasons. Sometimes they're large parcels and they usually get a lot of attention; the small parcels don't always get the same attention. Inasmuch as the minister has talked about how he is so non-partisan, how they put it in and don't take it out over the heads of the Agricultural Land Commission, I want to deal with one that they dealt with in late December — Edenbank.

Edenbank was taken out way back in '76, and very recently.... I'm not going to go back into that past history, but the same people were involved then as are involved now. When Edenbank wanted the release of 44.5 acres — 17.8 hectares — of land in Sardis from the reserve, the cabinet overruled the Land Commission and released it to Brodel Development Corp. It was signed by the then Minister of Environment. It's interesting to know that Eldon Unger is still connected with Brodel Development.

MS. SANFORD: Is he a Socred?

MRS. WALLACE: He certainly was back in 1976 and 1978. He was the campaign manager for the former Minister of Agriculture. So that's non-political. I don't suppose this minister ever heard of Eldon Unger. That's what has happened with the land commission.

MS. SANFORD: You don't have to ask about his political affiliation.

MRS. WALLACE: No, you don't have to ask about that; you know. And we've seen the Spetifore situation, the Gloucester situation — the major ones — which certainly did have political overtones.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I notice my time is up, but as I say, I'm pleased to second this particular motion.

Perhaps the minister wants to respond.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under normal circumstances one would expect, when a motion of confidence is before the assembly or the committee, that the minister would at least defend himself or possibly call for some support from his colleagues. I recognize that they're an endangered species — they're rushing around looking for support for their leadership — but surely some Socred over there has something to say in defence of this minister. He has been defiled; he has been told he's not competent, that he's worth a dollar less, that if he should lose this vote, the government goes down in flames. Surely somebody is going to jump up. One of the leadership aspirants should come in and show what a great job they can do.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Did you just announce?

Mr. Chairman, I've seen a significant change in the attitude of the farmers. As most people know, I've been in politics as a sitting member for some 17 years, and during that period there was always a great chasm between the New Democratic Party and a lot of the farmers in this province. Recently I've been to one or two conferences, and the attitude is absolutely diametrically opposite to what it used to be. What in the world are you people doing about the most important industry, in terms of our ability to feed ourselves, now and for the future? Farmers are growing increasingly hostile toward a government that seems not to care. They've got a minister who regrets very much having left the Forests ministry and is now in a ministry that he feels is unimportant.

Under those circumstances, how can anyone in this assembly do anything but vote in favour of a motion of non-confidence in that minister? I'm not going to lay it all on his feet. I believe the whole government represents that kind of feeling. I believe that the whole government is totally apathetic when it comes to anything to do with this very, very important industry.

MRS. WALLACE: He's not much worse than any of the other five ministers.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Just as one example of how caring they are about the farm industry, not one person on that side of the House has got up and said one single, solitary word, other than the minister's replies once or twice. But they haven't come in here to talk about their constituents. Many of these legislators are people from farming communities. Where are their words of advice? Where are their representations from their constituents? Now in the six square miles that my constituency represents in this huge province, we haven't very many farms. We have one or two little truck gardens down in Queensborough, which, incidentally, provide us with excellent vegetables. I'd hate to see them paved over. So far there don't seem to be too many signs of that. But there are legislators in this assembly who represent miles and miles and miles of farmland and farmers.

MRS. WALLACE: And farmers' wives.

MR. COCKE: And farmers' wives. And where are they — out beating the bushes for votes for leadership, supporting somebody who's running for leader? Maybe it's time they came in here and did their duty to their constituents. At worst, at least argue in defence of a minister who is now under fire.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he's had a motion of non-confidence, that poor man. A motion of non-confidence hangs over this House, and not one word of support from the Socreds with respect to this motion of non-confidence.

[ Page 8680 ]

MS. BROWN: You'd think they'd even lie a little.

MR. COCKE: No, I think that they should come in here and possibly, at least, make some representation, talk about their constituents' needs, tell us what kinds of policies the Socreds have for the future of the fanning industry in British Columbia. I hear nothing, in terms of policy, from either this minister or his predecessor — absolutely not one word of policy. How then can the farming community survive? How can they have confidence in their own future?

I'll tell them what to do. Along with this motion, which I propose to support, I suggest to the farming community: next time you have an opportunity, vote these rascals out and get a government in that will do the kinds of things that we did between 1972 and 1975. Remember farm income assurance. Remember the protection of agricultural land. That's the kind of government we need, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer of British Columbia. Not only will the NDP support this well-thought-out motion of non-confidence, but farmers quietly all over this province will support this motion of non-confidence and hail it as someone at least providing some leadership in British Columbia in terms of the agricultural future of B.C.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for New Westminster is certainly right when he says the farmers support this motion. He may not have heard me when I seconded it; I said I seconded it on behalf of the farm community of British Columbia. I know enough about farmers and about how they are feeling — farmers and ranchers both — to know that they would certainly support this.

I didn't have an opportunity when my time ran out to deal with the free-trade issue and I do want to deal with that. This is the minister, as Minister of Forests, who stood here, along with the Premier, and told us that everything was on the table. What did we find? A 35 percent tariff on shakes and shingles, and a countervail going ahead on softwood whether or not the International Trade Commission decides.

AN HON. MEMBER: A level playing field.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, a level playing field.

Now he's standing here and telling us that it's a level playing field, and that agriculture's going to be looked after. We can't trust that minister. We can't trust that government, because they're incompetent in dealing with the federal government; and certainly the federal government has proven that it's no match for the Reagans of this world.

Agriculture is especially vulnerable to external competition from U.S. agriculture. One reason is that they have a longer growing season; the other reason is that it's an earlier growing season. They do have immense support subsidies, but they're a different kind of subsidy.

Do the farmers have the confidence that this government, the government of Canada, briefed by this minister, will be able to ensure that in those free-trade negotiations the differences in those particular ways of subsidizing the industry are fully pointed out, and that there will be a fair and level degree of subsidization or assistance on both sides of the line? The farmers don't have confidence that this government will do that. They don't have confidence in the kind of input that they have to the bilateral trade discussions. They are extremely concerned, because of past experience, that trade-offs will be made to the disadvantage of British Columbia agriculture. Certainly under the GATT agreement that was the result.

The only thing that has saved them is their natural products marketing legislation, under which they can cooperatively work together to ensure that, where they have supply management, they can set the price based on cost of production; where they don't, they at least don't cut each others' throats by going out in competition with one another here. They meet the American price, or the import price, wherever the product comes from, and that's mighty low.

[11:00]

Without farm income insurance they would be in dire straits indeed. They don't trust the federal Minister of Agriculture any more than they trust this Minister of Agriculture. They think the federal Minister of Agriculture will be more interested in the prairie provinces and eastern Canada's agriculture than he will in B.C.'s agriculture; and they think this minister is not sufficiently aware of anything to be of much assistance.

Exchange rates are something that is always there with free trade or without free trade. They're concerned about the effect that exchange rates will have on the agricultural industry. They're unhappy with the language that's being used, because it's not the language of agriculture; it's the language of a business world quite separate and apart from the agricultural concern.

There are three major concerns and they've made three very specific recommendations. They've asked that agriculture be heard and understood, B.C. agriculture, in its own terms. They wish to preserve their ability to profitably grow food for the province and for export to other provinces and countries. They believe that a secure domestic food supply is vitally important; and if it's bartered away, it cannot be replaced.

We on this side of the House believe that too. A secure domestic food supply is one of the most critical things we have to deal with in British Columbia because, as I have said in this House many times before, the politics of food makes the politics of OPEC relative to oil look like child's play. When people are hungry and starving and can't get food because of a political decision of some outside nation, then we are in a very difficult situation. That's what could happen to British Columbia.

Canada is already a net importer of food. We in British Columbia have the soil and the climate to grow a great variety of products. It's a limited amount of soil, but we can grow a great many things here that can't be grown in the rest of Canada. It's extremely critical that we keep that industry here and viable and keep that land base. If we barter it away at some trade table in Ottawa or in Washington, then we will live to regret that, because we will not be able to produce even the minimal amount of food on an overall scale that we are able to produce on our small land base here. It's amazing what can be produced, because our farmers are very efficient and very competent.

The second request of B.C. farmers relates to the work that they have done over the years to develop the network of agricultural organizations, programs, policies and legislation. The Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and the special import measures act are two key examples. They insist that these not be forfeited or altered without their consent. They feel that they are not able to have that input. They're willing to look at a change, as long as they have a hand in the design. They feel they do not have that, and they are correct. They do not have adequate representation at the table.

[ Page 8681 ]

Their third request is that each commodity sector within the agricultural industry be given careful, separate and equal consideration regarding trade. Some products need more protection than others; they're more vulnerable. So they're asking that each product be looked at separately, not just as B.C. agriculture. They're extremely concerned that with the people that are presently negotiating, they won't even know what those products are in British Columbia. There is a lot of ignorance about B.C. agriculture sitting around the table dealing with free trade.

Those are the concerns that the agricultural industry has on free trade. They have not been answered by this minister in any way, shape or form; neither that, the questions on the agricultural land reserve, nor on the credit. Nothing: that's what the farmers get from this government and from this minister. They expect that somehow they're going to continue to support them at the polls. Well, I can tell you that there are a lot of farmers who are changing their minds. That minister should have been in Merritt with me last Sunday. He would be a little more concerned about getting around that constituency and seeing what's going on with the farmers there had he been at that meeting last Sunday. He may well find that when the election is finally called, he's going to have a very hot race on his hands.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's most worthwhile that we have this motion before the House. There's been an opportunity with the new minister to clean up some of these things, but I wonder if we really have the right fellow to do it, because if forests had been managed like farms, our forests would be in far better shape. That hasn't happened, so....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, I understand the point. We're talking about farming, and you can farm many things. This man's record in tree-farming is abysmal, and it looks like it's getting worse. What we have here is a minister who is still not very happy about his demotion, not very happy at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. We're dealing....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to deal with Bud.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, wimps for Bud. That's the way it looks to me, anyway.

The important thing we might talk about is the land that's come out of the ALR. There were early studies by the environment and land use secretariat, which unfortunately was lost once this administration took over. They looked at the important question of removal of lands from the ALR. The problem is that there is such an incentive to remove lands from the ALR. There is such political pressure among your friends — toward you — for removal of land from the ALR. That's a very serious problem indeed. When you have leadership campaigns in which it is now going to cost $500,000 per candidate, or something like that, then the question of influence in areas like this is a very real concern indeed. The problem is that there is so much money involved in taking land out of the agricultural land reserve. That needs to be deflated so that weaker people, when they are in office, do not succumb to those temptations. That is a very serious problem indeed. You start checking on the exclusions from the ALR over the years, and you will find an indelible link between Socred friends and land taken out of the ALR.

The Edenbank one is absolutely no exception. It proves the rule. Mr. Eldon Unger, long-time Social Credit supporter, is the man behind Edenbank; Brodel Development is his company. What kind of dollars are involved in this kind of game that is going on? Very substantial dollars indeed. In the case of Edenbank — about 18 hectares was taken out of the ALR. What's that, about 2.4 acres to a hectare or something like that? That would come out to 40-plus acres of land. But we're not talking about taking agricultural land and just turning it into single-family-dwelling land. You check the advertisements and you will find that Edenbank is a condominium community — that is, many units per acre. I have done a conservative estimate. Let's say five units per acre. That is almost single-family density. But the densities are much higher. A reasonable dollar value per housing unit in terms of land cost is $20,000. That makes $100,000 per acre in urban land values. I think that is conservative. That means that the land taken out for Edenbank is probably now worth, minus development costs and utilities, about $4 million. We are not talking about small potatoes at all.

Isn't it worth while contributing to a political party if you can turn pasture land that is worth a few thousand dollars per acre into land worth $100,000 an acre? Of course it is, and that is what Mr. Unger is doing. This is like growing money on trees, Mr. Chairman. This guy is going to pick up several million dollars out of that one transaction — 18 hectares. Green lands to greenbacks is the transformation that goes on in this particular game. This is out in Sardis, one of the main agricultural areas in the lower mainland. What gives? Who gives? That is the question: who gives and who takes?

What does the Agricultural Land Commission say in their analysis, in their review of this? That particular chunk of land has been turned down since 1975, and for good reason. It has never been improved for agricultural purposes because this is the kind of plan they always had in mind, good Socreds all — no drainage, no development of the land in terms of its full agricultural potential, because they wanted to turn it into greenbacks. And they have. For Mr. Unger it is Eden indeed. They said in the Land Commission decision that if permitted, it could act as a major intrusion into the agricultural land reserve and serve only to erode adjacent farmland by promoting similar applications from adjacent property owners. So they say it's a terrible precedent; you do this and you're going to encourage others to do it in an area where it shouldn't he happening. That's pretty clear.

"The exclusion of this parcel and subsequent urban development is contrary to both the commission's mandate and the Chilliwack official community plan." So the official community plan for the Chilliwack area says that that's agricultural land, and it should stay as agricultural land. "It is the commission's opinion that the property in question is prime farmland, suitable for a wide range of agricultural undertakings." What could he clearer? What is clearer is that a deal was struck; that a long-time person of influence in the Social Credit Party gets the land out of the agricultural land reserve. Land that was worth what? — probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars or so becomes worth several million dollars. And it's not only residential development that they're going

[ Page 8682 ]

to get; it's commercial development at, as I said, higher density. This isn't single-family dwelling stuff; this is retirement condominiums and the like. Check the exclusions. Check where the Land Commission said no and cabinet says yes. Every time you turn over a rock, you'll find a Socred bagman.

The challenge to you, Mr. Minister, is to clean up that mess. You don't have a good track record. I'm really sorry we couldn't go over the grants of cutting rights that you made in recent years which were contrary to all policy and went to friends of Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the member has admitted he's out of order. Please, vote 5.

MR. WILLIAMS: The pattern is abundantly clear already in this minister's record in other sectors. The real challenge is cleaning up the ALR mess in terms of changing greenland to greenbacks, and nothing is apparent yet of a change of heart or a change of attitude. This kind of going-on is endemic in this administration.

Then you get onto these other issues. Because he's still sulking about not being the Minister of Forests, we're not getting a proper job done in Agriculture. Look at the whole business of free trade. It would clearly be disastrous if there were open borders for agricultural products in terms of our marketing system in British Columbia. We heard in the press today that the Federation of Agriculture is asking for veto power with respect to agricultural products in the free-trade talks.

MRS. WALLACE: They're his friends, you see.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, they face very serious problems indeed. I was just watching on public television last night, or the night before, the problems of buying out dairy herds in the United States: 12 billion gallons of excess milk in the United States. All that excess would wipe out our dairy industry in absolutely no time flat. We'd be getting all of our dairy products from Washington State. We just can't tolerate that kind of idea. There has to be greater self-sufficiency in this area. Anybody who has taken a longer view of the food problem is concerned about the erosion of agricultural land and about greater self-sufficiency in the jurisdiction that we've got.

[11:15]

With this administration, under the deal with Mr. Mulroney we participate every three months in the free-trade talks — and the Federation of Agriculture is asking for veto power. Good luck to them. This administration is already into this thing, and clearly the agricultural product sector is one that has not been looked at carefully. There was a desperate need for sector-by-sector evaluation and sector-by-sector discussions with the United States, not an across-the-board discussion of issues like this which put a whole industry at risk, and clearly that's what is happening.

But most of all, Mr. Chairman, is this business around land exclusions from the ALR. That smells more and more of the patronage that it is, and for that reason we on this side support the motion before us.

MR. COCKE: Every member of this assembly has a speaker in their office and can hear every word that's going on here if they wish to — if they decide to listen. I would have thought that by now someone would have appeared in this committee to defend the minister. He's not defending himself. In view of the fact that there's a confidence motion before the committee, surely.... The member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is just coming in now. Surely he could get up and say something in defence of this poor minister who's facing a confidence motion that surely will destroy him. The member for Columbia River has lots of farmers up there. But failing his getting up and responding to the motion, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: He agrees with it, that's why; he's going to vote for it.

MR. COCKE: Well, then, the only thing we can judge, Mr. Chairman, is that obviously there's no support for the minister. He can't even get up and say one word in his own defence, so I guess we may as well go to the vote.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

NAYS — 22

MR. CHABOT: Point of order. When reporting to the Speaker, I wish you'd ask him to record this vote in the Journals of the House to clearly identify there are only 11 socialists here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order and it's not necessary to do that. As standing orders have been changed, the process is automatic.

On vote 5.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are all 24 of them leaving?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we please have some order, some quiet and some courtesy extended to the member for Mackenzie?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to the member for Columbia River, I might add before I start that, yes, there were 11 of us on this side of the House,

[ Page 8683 ]

but I can assure that side of the House it only takes any one of us to handle all 34 of those people.

[Mr. Ree in the char. ]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the matter of aquaculture and mariculture falls under the jurisdiction — at least part of that portfolio falls under that jurisdiction — of the Minister of Agriculture. The matter I'm about to raise again I discussed briefly with the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Kempf) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) and in the throne speech and budget speech debates. But this minister is responsible not only for that particular fast-growing industry here on the coast of British Columbia, but also for issuing grants to applicants who qualify. As a matter of fact, the whole coast of my riding is being surveyed for aquaculture, mariculture purposes. Mr. Chairman, I want it on the record before I start my presentation that the members on this side of the House are not opposed to the fish-producing industry on the coast of British Columbia, or the aquaculture industry, where mussels and oysters and clams and things are grown. Where the problem arises is that this government, under this minister particularly, has been giving out leases by the hundred, I might add, on the coast, and particularly on the Sunshine Coast area of this province. I believe at the moment there are in excess of 100 applications which either have been granted or are in the process of being reviewed.

I have in front of me, Mr. Chairman, three huge files containing almost 400 pieces of correspondence from people who are extremely concerned about the way this industry is being handled here on the coast of British Columbia. I have before me as well articles from various publications. One I'm looking at now appeared in a publication called Fisherman, April 18, 1986, pointing out to the citizens of this province — at least of this coast — and those who are interested, the problems in the way this industry is being handled by this government.

The minister mentioned during his opening remarks the other day, when his estimates were called, the benefits of mariculture. That may be so on the coast of British Columbia. In his statement he referred to the Norwegian model, the way the industry should be handled. But I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, the industry is not being handled with the Norwegian model here on the coast of British Columbia; it's being handled by a Social Credit model. That's how it's being handled.

[11:30]

Let me tell you what part of the problem is. This government is issuing leases, and has issued leases, without reference to regional districts or municipal councils in some areas — Islands Trust in one major case, which I'm going to discuss for a minute — local ratepayer groups issuing these leases, and in residential areas in some cases....

I'll cite a couple of cases in a few minutes. I'll cite two right now. One which the minister must be aware of, because I have reams of correspondence on this one issue, is the Wood Bay area of Halfmoon Bay where the government issued, I believe — I'm going from memory here, although I can look it up very quickly — a licence for a 20-hectare fish farm in a residential area, accompanied by an upland processing plant in a residential area. In spite of petitions and correspondence from the residents of that area, this government not only issued leases but that ministry issued grants for that particular lease.

The other major issue that the minister may and should be aware of is an application — and I received 106 letters from residents, property owners — for a licence at Keats Island, which happens to be under the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Ministry of Agriculture is not in the business of issuing licences or leases for agricultural projects. I'm sure the member did mention this when the Ministers of Environment and Lands, Parks and Housing had their estimates before us, but really there is no way I can comment on responsibilities in terms of licensing of another ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point well taken.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, it's not well taken. Let me explain, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister does not have the authority for the issuing of licences.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I understand the process very well, having been greatly involved in this for many, many months now. That minister, who sits on the land use committee, who is in charge of approving grants and development licences before a grant can be given, has direct responsibility for how those leases are issued, who they are issued to and under what conditions. Otherwise these people who are applying for these leases cannot receive assistance — theoretically, although there is some doubt about this as well — from that minister.

If that minister doesn't know what's happening in his own ministry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The licences are not issued by the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet either; they're issued by ministries — not my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is that the minister does not, in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture and Food, have within his jurisdiction the issuing of licences for mariculture. The ministry may have certain funding with respect to it, but has no authority with respect to the issue of the licence.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This minister, Mr. Chairman, if you will refer to your orders-in-council, is directly responsible for the administration of the mariculture and aquaculture industry on the coast of British Columbia, and he cannot evade his responsibilities by getting up on a feeble point of order. Now may I continue my presentation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not on the issuing of licences. On other matters affecting aquaculture or mariculture, yes — the funding and development of same.

[ Page 8684 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's been a hallmark of that minister over there to evade his responsibilities in forestry for ten years — the administration of that portfolio — and now he's attempting to evade his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture for this province. But I don't think he can get away with it. We're not going to let him get away with it. Not this time. No way.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, personally I would really give the member all the latitude he possibly can take. But the House definitely does have rules, which I am not at liberty to vary. If the member wants to discuss with me in another forum, I'll be very happy to, but I'm just pointing out that the rules of the House really should be complied with — unless the members can somehow change the rules.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, everybody in this committee knows that an aquaculture licence cannot be issued without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for fisheries.

Now he's asking his officials whether or not that's true. This has to be something of a revelation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've made my point anyway in terms of how these licences are issued and the great amount of correspondence that I've received on this matter. It's my personal suspicion that in some cases if you happen to be a friend of the government it's much easier to get a licence and a grant than if you're just an ordinary person out there trying to.... Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman: I've got good reason to make that remark in this House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, if the member has any specific charges to make, if he feels there has been any abuse of any of the rights or privileges or authority of the government, that he make such charges. I challenge him to do so, and I challenge him to do so outside these chambers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order to rise on. The Minister of Agriculture will have his opportunity to participate in debate and correct any statements that may be made. In the meantime, the member for Mackenzie has been recognized by the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I refer to an article, then, appearing in the Vancouver Sun, Monday, June 9, a few days ago, on the issuance of a grant to a particular operation. This was to a promotional agency, called Aqua West, an agency which I'm reasonably familiar with and an agency that has two operations of its own as registered companies. "Aqua West received $150,000 from the provincial Agriculture ministry in instalments over the past two years and $70,000 from the federal Fisheries and Oceans department." My question to the minister on this particular item — and there are many more such examples — is how does that minister choose who will receive these grants and who will not? I get correspondence and phone calls from people who have applied but don't receive the grants or have applied for grants and been turned down cold. Why did this particular person on that particular part of the coast receive these grants? They're not even in operation yet, in my understanding, but they received the grants. Why?

How are these grants issued? I'd like to know how many pounds of fish have actually been sold from all of these fish farms that have begun operation over the past two years. What has been the return to British Columbia over the past two years? I'm familiar with a few fish farms that actually have sold some of their products, but they've also received grants from the federal and provincial governments in order to make ends meet in their operations because they were not profitable. How many people have actually been employed in the industry over the past two years, since this industry has taken off like a balloon?

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the concept of mariculture and aquaculture, although a good case can be made for reasons why the government should be very careful about how they go into this business.

I have put forward a suggestion and a resolution to this government, Mr. Chairman, that this government suspend the issuance of further licences on the coast of British Columbia until a coastal planning commission has been put in place. I might add that in 1981 this government did in fact strike such a commission for a few months. Then they came up with something called restraint, whereby they fired thousands and thousands of people, put a lot of people out of work. Nonetheless, they scrapped that commission, and the reason they scrapped that commission, in my view, was simply so that the minister and this government and that minister could issue these licences and these grants without having to go through an independent coastal zoning and planning commission, which is favoured by most people on the coast of British Columbia.

I'll wait for the minister's answer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Mackenzie and I and most people in the Legislature do agree that the aquaculture industry can be a great benefit to the province of British Columbia in terms of industry, job creation, food production and export of our products. It is a very rapidly growing business, and I think one that we should encourage to grow. I realize, as does the member, that because the industry is growing so rapidly we are having growing pains.

There is some uncertainty and misinformation in some people's minds, and there are objections to having aquacultural operations in some areas. Everybody has their own interests. I am sure that by having the various ministries involved — the Ministries of Environment and Lands, Parks and Housing and my ministry, which has direct responsibility for the industry itself — work together with the public and with the industry, most of these problems can be overcome. I see no need to put a moratorium on the growth of the industry. As a matter of fact, we as a government, and most of the citizens of British Columbia, have been trying our best to encourage the growth of this industry. I think a moratorium would be a large backward step. We can learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, and indeed we are. I think we should encourage investment by others. The problems that exist can be overcome through dialogue, consultation and discussion, and it is my intention — as has always been my way of dealing with my responsibilities — to make sure that we have as much discussion as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remark very briefly on the grant to Aqua West. The idea of having this aquacultural show in cooperation with the business showcase at the Canadian

[ Page 8685 ]

pavilion at Expo came forward by the Sunshine Coast Tourism Association the year before last. Mr. Richard Tomkies, I believe, was the president of the association at the time. I believe he still is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, most positive things that have happened are initiated by Social Crediters in British Columbia. I certainly would not withhold a grant to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Association because some of the members happened to be positive-thinking Social Credit members as well.

A grant of $50,000 was provided at that time. It was indicated that an additional $100,000 would be forthcoming once we reviewed the expenditure and status of what had been done with the original $50,000. That review did take place and an additional $100,000 came forward. Moneys came from the federal government and a large amount from the private sector as well. The two levels of government and the private sector, I think, are doing an excellent job in promoting the awareness of aquaculture in British Columbia. Some of your people on the Sunshine Coast, I'm sure, will learn a lot about aquaculture by visiting the displays that are taking place.

Yes, I guess Mr. Tomkies perhaps is a member of the Social Credit Party, as are 40,000 or 50,000 other British Columbians. They're generally the kind of people who like to see things go ahead and are positive in their outlook.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thousands of new ones every week.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Every week thousands of new ones that are going to support certain people in their leadership aspirations.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any disagreement between the member and me. I think we can work together to overcome some of the problems. One of the things that I think we should do as we go along is review those sites which are most appropriate for aquaculture, where there is the least conflict with other uses, and see if we can't integrate the aquaculture and fish-farming business with other needs and uses of the foreshore and the waters of the coast of British Columbia. I'm sure we can do that. I don't think we need have a moratorium. I don't think we need be fighting about it either as political parties or citizens of the province.

[11:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do believe I made the points that are important, a thumbnail sketch. I was going to read into the record correspondence I received this morning on this topic, basically in the same vein as over 600 other pieces of correspondence that I've received, mostly from the Sunshine Coast; 106 letters on the Keats Island situation alone. If the minister proceeds with that program in that residential area, well, I'll tell you: what's the point of it all?

The minister did make a remark about the conflict of interest — precisely the point I am trying to make here. The prolific way in which this government is handing out these licences and grants under this ministry has alienated the overwhelming majority of people, particularly on the Sunshine Coast. Certainly the matter is picking up in the upper coastal areas and some areas of Vancouver Island as well.

Residents are very concerned. I've had recreational boaters, recreational people who have lost the use of their beaches — whole areas closed to the public, to loggers and other groups. Areas have been closed to commercial fishermen because of the way this government is issuing these licences, which in fact give the holder a fee-simple ownership for a period of time. If it's a ten-year lease with an option to renew in ten years, you can rest assured once they've got a $300,000 or $1 million investment in that area, that licence will be renewed.

Bit by bit these primary and most useful areas of the coast, particularly on the Sunshine Coast, are being lost to the people of this province. We do need a coastal management plan with input from regional districts, native Indian bands, municipalities and local residential groups. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, if on your property in West Vancouver or North Vancouver, wherever it is — I don't know exactly where you live — someone put a 20-acre fish farm in front of your house and then, next door to your house, put in a fish processing plant. Would you not protest? I am pretty sure you would protest. Well, it's exactly what we're talking about here with this minister. Not only that, but they get grants from this minister to do that kind of thing. The value of their homes....

I know one couple near Wood Bay that have a fish farm almost directly in front of their house, and it will be a 20-acre site when it's completed. For a young working family who have spent years slowly attempting to build a very nice home, water foreshore property, that home has been devalued by half only because of the actions of this government. That is just one small example. I intended to go through some of this mail. I have sent copies of this mail to major government ministers; every single letter has gone to them. The response I get back is basically telling me everything is okay, that this has been well thought out. Nonsense!

Regional boards have been consulted? Nonsense! Sure, they sent a letter to the regional district. Sure, the regional district will say, "No, we suggest you do not have a fish farm in this area," but the licence is issued anyway and the thing is in progress. So I would suggest to that minister that he is not properly handling his portfolio in this regard. I suggest to you that there should be a moratorium on licences being issued, and grants being issued, which is under the jurisdiction of this ministry, until a coastal planning commission is in place and has had a chance to re-evaluate this matter.

Before I take my seat, I might suggest to the minister as well — because I can tell from his remarks that he has not looked at other models around the world where this same type of issue has developed and been resolved — that he look first of all at Norway, Finland, Japan. There is a fairly good example in Japan where they have handled this matter properly in terms of aquaculture and mariculture.

As I say, we are not opposed to the concept, but the way this is happening and the way it is being handled by this government is not acceptable to us. I hope that this government, when the election is called later this year, will lose every seat on the coast of British Columbia and on Vancouver Island on this issue, and I think they will.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the member for Mackenzie that I would be very happy to visit the fish-farming industry in Finland and Norway and Japan, providing he gives me the assurance that when I have

[ Page 8686 ]

gone he doesn't raise questions about wasting taxpayers' dollars traveling around the world.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have some concerns with regard to the agricultural industry in the Okanagan and with what has happened over the past ten years with the removal of a considerable amount of land throughout British Columbia as a result of decisions made by the cabinet's Environment and Land Use Committee. Over the last ten years, we have removed over 7,000 hectares — over 17,300 acres — of agricultural land from the land reserve. This loss of viable agricultural land continues under the present ministry. I think that the minister should be taking a serious look at the continued erosion of our agricultural base. There is, I think, less than 5 percent of our land base which can be considered agricultural or arable land. That's not much, and we're chewing into that at a considerable rate.

I think this government has demonstrated its belief that market forces shaping the farm economy are beyond our control. It appears, anyway, that they believe that agriculture has to ultimately yield to market forces, to encroaching urbanization and to industrial development. I want to submit that this should not be the case, that the preservation of agricultural land should be taken as an immediate priority. I recall the Premier some time ago stating that agriculture in B.C. will never be a paying proposition. I think that that statement indicates very clearly where agriculture is among this government's priorities. I think that this idea has to be soundly and completely rejected. The provincial government should not be prepared to surrender our provincial economy, and our citizens, those individuals involved in the agricultural business, should not be prepared to surrender their futures to the whims of the free market.

I think that survival of agriculture in British Columbia and survival of the family farm as a component of the agricultural industry is essential in the development of long-term stability in agriculture. I think the last few years in particular have demonstrated that B.C. agriculture faces some pretty tough times. The lingering recession and high interest rates combined with low commodity prices have worked together to depress the farm economy considerably. Recent farm foreclosures that have been demonstrated from the Peace River right down to the U.S. border, I think, are indicative of the current crisis that is facing our farming community.

I attended a meeting earlier in the year in Kelowna. The meeting was to deal with the farm debt crisis. It was a workshop attended by farmers from throughout not just the Okanagan but British Columbia. I had the opportunity at that time to hear firsthand the problems that individual farmers throughout British Columbia have been facing.

I'd like to submit to the minister that the most significant factor mentioned as causing financial stress was the inability of those farmers to obtain reasonable rates of credit to run their businesses. What was of even greater concern was that the hardest hit are young farmers who are just getting into the market, because even though they have the most initiative, they carry the highest debt burden and are the first to face the spectre of foreclosure when the banking community, with its increasingly conservative bent, pulls the rug out from under them.

Between 1981 and 1984 British Columbia experienced the greatest decline in agricultural assets of any province in Canada. In those years the net worth of B.C. farms declined more than $765 million. At the same time as the value of those farms was dropping, the interest rates on farm mortgages continued to increase. In June 1985 the Farm Credit Corporation reported that 53 percent of B.C. farmers were experiencing what they defined as moderate to severe financial stress. I might add that that was the highest rate recorded in Canada.

I have a lot more to say at this point, and I want to make sure that I have the minister's attention. I know the hour is drawing late, so I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.