[ Page 4855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Loan to Manco Home Systems Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 4855

Referendum system on education costs. Mr. Jones –– 4856

Police Act (Bill 21). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4858

Mr. Sihota –– 4859

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4862

Land Title Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4863

Mr. Sihota –– 4865

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4865

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4866

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Williams

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have visiting with us today the consul-general for West Germany. Mr. Reinhard Marks, who will be visiting my office later on. He has been with us since 1984 and has certainly established a great rapport with the German-Canadian community as well as with the balance of the community, including those in business and those who trade with West Germany. He will, unfortunately, be leaving us for another posting: we will certainly miss him, because we have established a good friendship and a close relationship. I would ask the House to bid him welcome today and to extend our very best wishes for him in future.

We also have with us, seated right next to Mr. Reinhard Marks, a good friend who is visiting from the constituency of Saltspring. He has served the government in a variety of capacities, and we certainly want to bid him welcome as well: Mr. Peter Bazowski.

MS. MARZARI: I have the honour to introduce grade 7 students from St. Augustine's School, sitting in the gallery with their teacher, Mrs. Brown. It is a real pleasure to have them in the House today and I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PARKER: I would like the House to welcome today a good friend, my executive assistant, Chris Shaffer, of Terrace, B.C.

MS. CAMPBELL: I have two introductions to make. First of all, I would like to add a welcome to the students from St. Augustine's School and advise the House that these grade 7 students were asked to stand outside prior to coming in to get ready for question period because they were "so rambunctious." I told them they had nothing on the deportment of this House during question period, so I hope we won't disappoint them.

In the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Miss Nancy Peck. Probably somebody else from our caucus will welcome all of our constituency assistants who are here today, but I would like to make a special welcome to Nancy Peck and her guests from Brisbane, Australia, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Mathews. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sure the House would like to join me in recognizing an honour to a sometime member of my constituency and a personal friend, Sherri Selby, who has been awarded the Terry Fox medal and humanitarian award. Sherri has waged a long battle with her physical capabilities. She is a cystic fibrosis victim and has pushed herself to do many of the community and support things that led to the awarding of this medal. I can't think of a better person to have received it, and I ask you to join me in recognizing her for this honour.

MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure to introduce three lovely ladies in the members' gallery who are relatives of the former member for South Peace River, Mr. Don Phillips. In the gallery are Joan Phillips; Don's sister, Mrs. Evelyn DeLong, from Woodstock, New Brunswick~ and her daughter, Ruth Tedone, from Connecticut. Would the House please bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is a gentleman from Prince Rupert, Mr. Ezekiel Damaso. I would ask the House to welcome him to Victoria.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today, visiting from Maple Ridge, are Roy and Dian Lind and their son Sean. Not only are Roy and Dian neighbours of mine, but Roy is the vice-president of marketing of Metro Valley Newspaper Group, one of the fastest-growing groups of weekly newspapers in B.C. and perhaps in western Canada. On behalf of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and myself I would ask you to make them welcome here today.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope the House will also welcome the former minister, Mr. Don Phillips. the province's most successful lobbyist and the man who made a $25 million interest-free loan to Louisiana-Pacific. and who's quietly skulking around the chambers today.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming friends from White Rock who sailed into Victoria this weekend: Ellen and Hal Sinclair and their friends Barbara and Guy Weston.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the precincts today are 35 constituency assistants for Social Credit members. Will the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

LOAN TO MANCO HOME SYSTEMS LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Regarding the loan to Manco Home Systems Ltd., a housing company in Chilliwack, could the Premier advise the House why that loan was at first turned down by cabinet?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Whatever takes place within cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Premier advise the House why once Mr. Phillip's lobbying group, Phillips Bailey, were involved. it was reconsidered by cabinet and approved? Could the Premier advise why the loan was approved?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Any approval certainly would be to the benefit of British Columbia. and we're now seeing jobs having again been created in the province, and we're seeing it throughout all parts of the province. We're seeing great progress in the area of manufacturing. As a matter of fact, as has been recognized by people in Ottawa, British Columbia is leading the whole of this nation in creating new manufacturing opportunities. Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to see such growth. We're going to continue to create jobs for British Columbians in a good, free enterprise manner.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier doesn't realize the company went bankrupt March 2. Could the Premier advise the House why the loan was approved

[ Page 4856 ]

when there was $1.3 million already owing unsecured creditors and they went bankrupt two months later?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the details. With respect to the question asked, I will certainly take it as notice or perhaps defer to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. WILLIAMS: My concern, Mr. Speaker, is around the question of guidelines with respect to former cabinet ministers operating as lobbyists. Can the Premier advise the House when there will be conflict guidelines with respect to former ministers carrying out work as lobbyists?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, guidelines are in place and have been in place for several years, and all are abiding by those guidelines. I might say, though, that contrary to what is obviously the approach used by or popular with socialists, we would encourage as many people as possible — business people — to get out there and promote British Columbia throughout the whole of the continent and elsewhere in the world. Again, it means jobs for British Columbians, and that's why we're seeing such progress in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Economic Development. One of the partners of Mr. Phillips, who was an employee of the minister's ministry, Mr. Castling, said: "We're just dealing at the ministerial level" — i.e. in arranging these loans and other access to government. "We don't jack around with programs or the bureaucratic level. There's just too many hoops to jump through." Can the minister advise the House when she will require that these lobbyists go through all the procedures that other citizens have to go through?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to something that was said about the industry which the member for Vancouver East suggested there were some problems with, in terms of lobbying. Manco Homes was an account which the Ministry of Economic Development has handled very well. There was not an ability to make a contract with them in terms of loan guarantees, because they were not able to prove up their financing. Therefore, as with any other group not able to prove up their financing, it did not go through. If you want any further details, I can always give them to you individually. If you would like to put it on the order paper or address your question to me, I will bring it back to the House later.

In terms of the second question from the hon. member for Vancouver East, the Ministry of Economic Development's approach to receiving those proposals from any business is that we will receive them, and they will be well looked after in terms of study. Proposals will be given by the ministry and through the ministry to government with all the information needed to have government make a good judgment. Everyone is looked after in the same, even-handed way by my ministry, and it will continue to be so in my ministry.

REFERENDUM SYSTEM ON EDUCATION COSTS

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Premier, who is actively encouraging his party to start a campaign to introduce a referendum for school tax purposes. Given that his party was responsible for shifting the burden of taxation responsibility on to the residential taxpayer and away from his friends in the corporations, is it not hypocritical for the Premier to now scapegoat locally elected school boards that are responsible to their voters in their districts?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it's always good to give democracy the opportunity to work. If, in fact, there are those who through the process of referenda would like to make a decision with respect to other proposals put forth by a school district, then I certainly think we ought to consider giving them that opportunity.

We on this side certainly feel that the democratic process is a healthy one. If there is a way by which we can expand upon it and give more people an opportunity to say what they would like to have in their own school district over and above that which would normally be provided, I for one see nothing wrong with giving them the opportunity to make the democratic process work even better. That's fair. We're all for fairness. We're certainly all for having the democratic process work as effectively as possible.

I'm surprised that they would again question this from the other side, because I certainly think British Columbians want to be reassured that all people in the House want to see the democratic process strengthened by whatever means we can use. For us, if there's sufficient support for this type of approach in the province, we would be very supportive of it and would consider that additional opportunity in our democracy.

MR. JONES: The Premier clearly has one standard for school districts in this province and another for the rest of the government operation. A supplementary to the Premier. Less than a month ago the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) stated clearly in this House: "I, and most of government, agree that a referendum is not generally or necessarily based on a rational vote.... We don't want to see a referendum." Mr. Premier, don't you realize you are contradicting your Minister of Education again? When are you going to start listening to your ministers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not argue with that statement. I think it should be a decision by the people, if in fact they wish to see such changes made in the process. I understand there are a number of questionnaires that have been put to people in various constituencies in order to see the opinions in those constituencies. If in fact that is the wish of people, then I think we should address it, and address it fairly.

We have, as the member knows, an opportunity to discuss this here; we have an opportunity to discuss it in committee, and we can discuss such matters in cabinet as well. We have a good understanding of what people want, and we're fostering this sort of input from the public at all times. I know that the hon. member would never understand that, because I am sure that while we have had the opportunity in British Columbia when an NDP cabinet was in place and tried to make decisions on a number of issues.... They only had that opportunity once, and they'll never get it again.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary to the Premier, who when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs took a municipality to court for holding a referendum. Why has he changed his mind now? It was against that socialist stronghold Oak Bay, as a matter of fact.

[ Page 4857 ]

The homeowner grant hasn't increased from $380 since 1981 — seven years — but the minimum tax payable before the grant applies has risen by $300. Instead of raising new controversies — which you don't need more of, and neither do we — why don't you do something positive and raise the homeowner grant to at least cover inflation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Where's W.A.C. Bennett when we need him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The program the member is referring to was another good Social Credit program. It was, as was mentioned by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), introduced by W.A.C. Bennett. He introduced many good programs, which is why this government was elected in 1954, 1957, 1961, '65, '69, and only missed out in 1972, heaven forbid. We paid the price, and the province paid it so dearly that it re-elected Social Credit in '75, '79, '83 and '86. They'll continue to do that, because we have introduced many positive programs. This province is leading economically in this country. We're making great progress. There's no room for socialism in this country. That's why the socialists were kicked out of B.C. and Saskatchewan and, recently, Manitoba.

MR. HARCOURT: Because of that auto-rant we just had once again.... I know the Premier likes simple answers and has trouble with simple questions. I will try the question again. Are you prepared to raise the homeowner grant to help our homeowners with the unfair school financing formula you put in place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I only have problems with simple people. I'll defer to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I appreciate the opportunity to deal with this heavy subject. It raises a number of issues. The hon. member is quite correct. One option would have been for any government of the day to have increased homeowner grants versus increasing appropriations to school boards. Good point, Mr. Speaker, and I am indebted to the hon. member for pointing it out. It's true that every government has that choice. This government decided, in its wisdom, that it would have been a less-than-fair treatment to have merely increased homeowner grants without at the same time looking seriously at the basic question of funding for school boards. That's a choice that can be made each budget year and it is one that is addressed each budget year.

I take it from the hon. member's question that he would have preferred, rather than increase the appropriations to school boards by 8 percent this year, to have kept the appropriations to school boards at last year's level and raised homeowner grants by a commensurate sum of money. If I understand that that is the thrust

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Oh, I see. The hon. member wants it both ways. He wants both increases of 8 percent in school board allocations and an increase in homeowner grants. I take it that that's the choice.

Unfortunately I don't know of any person who is able to grow money on trees. The fact of the matter is that we had a philosophical question when we designed the budget this year, which was: do we want to treat school boards properly and adequately or not? This government said that we will treat school boards fairly and equitably. We will increase their allotment by 8 percent. We will ensure that the quality of education in this province is unmatched anywhere else in Canada. The funding appropriation we provided this year ensures that.

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader on a point of order.... Opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: Well, maybe you were right the first time. I hope you were.

I really must protest. Mr. Speaker. We have seen today a deplorable misuse of the question period in terms of responses by the government side. We ask a very simple question and we get a tirade, an auto-rant, a big speech. We were treated to that last week. I think we've got to be far more disciplined here. Both the Premier and the Minister of Finance abuse this House. and they abuse it regularly. I have to protest this, because it's just not good enough. We want to avoid having points of order during question period. I'm quite willing to abide by that, but not when this House is abused day after day in this manner.

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the member may have a point, which we will consider. But I want to advise the House that members of the cabinet benches are operating under a new factor that was just developed. It's called the Strachan factor, and it's this: first, the time of the preamble, not the question, is normally squared. and the answer is given using those numbers; secondly, the House must consider that when asking a question about extensive finance policy such as the homeowner's grant, one should expect — particularly from a minister who can really put the flesh on the bones of a serious question — an extensive answer, because you're dealing with major, significant financial policy.

MR. D'ARCY: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member could take a seat for just a moment, I'd like to comment on what both the government House leader and the opposition House Leader have said.

The Speaker is just a servant of this House. As you know, we allow leeway on both sides. If members were to look at the questions, I think they could find as many questions that lead people on or incite a lengthy answer. If both sides want to see a change in that policy, they only have to shorten the questions and the answers. The Speaker is a servant of both sides, and I hope that both sides, when they listen to the advice of both House Leaders, will make the questions less exciting and the answers not quite as long.

MR. D'ARCY: I would just like to comment to the House that on Thursday last, I believe it was, I think the Attorney-General.... I didn't see the announcement, but a new Provincial Court chief judge was named: Bruce Josephson of Castlegar. I want to commend the government and the A-G for making that choice. Judge Josephson had a relatively brief but distinguished career as a lawyer in the West

[ Page 4858 ]

Kootenay, and I think he's had a 12- or 13-year career as a Provincial Court judge, in which once again he has distinguished himself. I commend the Attorney-General for his appointment. I think he'll be an outstanding chief judge in the province of British Columbia.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I have leave to respond to the member's statement?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm very obliged to the member for making that statement, which came as a very pleasant surprise after a somewhat discursive question period.

That appointment — I agree with you — is an impeccable appointment. Judge Josephson sat in Castlegar and was an excellent judge. He was associate chief judge and president of the Provincial Judges' Association. The chief judge of this province has to be the tender of a flock of judges who are separated by distance and many other concerns across the province. It's a very compelling full-time job. The last chief judge was Gerald Coultas, who is now on the Supreme Court. Judge Josephson is very well equipped in terms of fairness, temperament, decency and persistence to fill those shoes. I really thank the member for making those statements.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 21.

POLICE ACT

HON. B.R. SMITH: Just very briefly on this bill: it was originally tabled as an exposure bill in the last session in June. We brought in major amendments to the current Police Act with respect to the procedure for handling citizens' complaints against police behaviour and a number of minor amendments designed to improve the structure and clarify the language.

Since that time, we've entered into a fairly full process of consultation. We've had briefs from the police boards of the 12 municipalities that have independent municipal forces. We've had briefs from the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federation of Peace Officers, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and a number of other interested parties. We have not, of course, been able to carry out the wishes of all these groups. But we have endeavoured to listen, respond and bring in some changes that certainly improve the original bill, particularly in relation to the proposed office of the complaint commissioner to handle citizens' complaints against police behaviour.

There was a feeling that perhaps that office was not sufficiently independent. Therefore we have strengthened that independence. We have not gone as far as the Civil Liberties Association and others would have urged us to go. We have maintained an independent office under the aegis of the B.C. Police Commission. We happen to think that the B.C. Police Commission has carried out a very good function since its formation. It has built up a great deal of credibility with the police community. The police community, unlike other communities, is very much concerned about its integrity and the necessity to maintain a certain standard of esprit de corps, and I think that community has to receive recognition.

On the other hand, I believe the public is entitled to be assured that if there are complaints against the police, they are not only handled promptly and fairly, but there will also be some process whereby other than police will look at the conduct of police. The office of the complaint commissioner will ensure that takes place. The main reasons for introducing this new Police Act are to deal with the citizen complaint procedure and to strengthen the investigative and inquiry power of the B.C. Police Commission.

We also had some difficulty in dismissing police constables for cause because of the uncertainty in the current Police Act as to whether you should go by way of discipline regulations under the act or under the Labour Code procedure. That has been a vexing dilemma for some time, and that is now clarified. The current Police Act has certain weaknesses, both in organization and draftsmanship, which need to be rectified.

The drafting of the new bill is a considerable improvement. It establishes that the Attorney-General has the constitutional authority to superintend police delivery in the province and to ensure that adequate and effective levels of policing are maintained; that the new act contains sufficient authority for the Attorney-General to take action with respect to performance and organization of municipal and provincial police; that chief constables of municipal forces must continue to be held accountable for the conduct of the members of their force — we have not taken that authority away from chief constables; we have left it with them in the field — and that municipal and provincial police forces exist as extensions of the authority bestowed on them by local citizens and their local communities.

They are not an extension of the authority of the provincial government. Where you have a local force, and the citizens have decided to pay 100 percent of the cost of it, then they have a board with the mayor as the chairman, and there is local accountability. We have also ensured that public confidence will be enhanced with respect to the process for handling complaints made by citizens.

The citizen complaint procedure follows changes that were made to the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It was amended by Parliament in 1986 to provide — among other things — for the establishment of a public complaints commission and a procedure for the receipt and handling of complaints against RCMP members. In British Columbia the new RCMP Act procedure will apply to all those members who serve with the RCMP, but will not apply to special constables or auxiliary members who are appointed under the Police Act. For these members, as well as for members of the 12 independent municipal police forces, the B.C. Police Act procedure which is under debate here will still apply. In November 1986, in light of the amendments to the federal RCMP Act and in the wake of the bill we were preparing for handling complaints against the police, we directed that the B.C. Police Act be amended in accordance with a number of guidelines, which were that we would have some uniformity and interaction with the RCMP Act procedures, so that provincial RCMP and local police under our Police Act would be dealt with as uniformly and as similarly as possible.

We also strove to make the process more open for all parties. The need to have greater public involvement in resolving complaints was considered, as was the need for some mechanism for independent investigation of complaints and monitoring of the complaint process and the need

[ Page 4859 ]

to improve public confidence in the police and in the handling of complaints against the police.

Bill 21 is really based on the following premises: that the Police Commission will remain as an independent authority; that the police are responsible to resolve and investigate complaints against the conduct of municipal constables in the first instance; that the complaint process should be open and subject to monitoring by an independent authority, which is assured by this bill; that the informal resolution of complaints is appropriate in some circumstances, but that the disciplinary authorities should have discretion as to whether to proceed informally or by investigation; that the complainant and the constable complained against are entitled to know how the process works and the status and results of an investigation or hearing in respect of a complaint; that police boards are the employers of municipal police forces and are responsible to adjudicate matters of dispute between the force and members of the public which cannot be resolved in any other way; that the public should be more involved in the hearing and resolution of complaints; and that complaints, if necessary, may be investigated by the B.C. Police Commission.

To give effect to those principles, we have changed the citizen complaint procedure to provide for the appointment of a complaint commissioner. We have changed the authority of the B.C. Police Commission in that regard. It will be expanded under this bill to not less than three members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There's a new provision to provide for the appointment of people to the commission who will serve on panels established to hear appeals from decisions of local police boards in citizen complaint matters. The commission is empowered to order special investigations into police action or conduct, while it retains its powers of inquiry, study and inspection under the present Police Act. The independence of the commission has been reinforced by other amendments to the act which redefine its responsibilities.

The complaint commissioner's office which we've established provides that the commissioner will be a member of the Police Commission appointed to monitor the handling of complaints against the police and to oversee the operation of the complaint procedure. He will hear complaints from the public. He will receive notice of all complaints made under the act. I think it's terribly important that he's going to be plugged into every single complaint, so that he won't just hear about matters when they're brought to him by way of some kind of appeal. He'll be able to monitor any complaint he's concerned about throughout. He will establish a record of complaints and how they are resolved, or otherwise dealt with, in accordance with the provisions of the complaint procedure.

His job will also be to assist and advise all parties to a complaint, and the disciplinary authorities, with respect to any problems which may be encountered when processing a complaint. He will inspect the police records and systems of administering the complaint process. He will ensure that the public is informed about the complaint process. If warranted, he will request the commission to initiate a special investigation with respect to police handling of complaints. He will have investigative means at his disposal, separate from the local police force and under the auspices of the B.C. Police Commission. The complaint commissioner will function as a resource to all parties. He will be able to monitor the handling of all complaints. He will therefore be able to ensure that complainants get satisfaction and that justice is not just done, but seen to be done as well.

Additionally, he can receive complaints directly from the public. So if you get a complainant who feels he just does not want to go through the process of going to the local chief and having the local force look the matter over — if he has some problem dealing with the local force — then that citizen can go directly to the complaint commissioner as an alternative process. Some people are intimidated by direct contact with the local police force, or they may have had some other experience which was not happy.

In carrying out all these duties, the complaint commissioner will have access to all files related to complaints, and can request the chief constable to reinvestigate a complaint if he's not satisfied with how the complaint was handled. There will be very strict procedures under the act for complaints. Those will be certain and laid out in a definite way.

[2:45]

The dismissal of police constables, which I dealt with earlier, is one of the important changes to this bill. The current Police Act allows for the dismissal of police constables using either the Labour Code — or the Industrial Relations Act, as it has now become — or the Police Act disciplinary regulations. In Bill 21 the uncertainty is removed by providing only one process, that using the Police Act and the disciplinary regulations. This is consistent with recent court decisions which have criticized attempts to dismiss constables under the late Labour Code. The police are going to be dealt with differently and separately. They are not just employees under the labour code; they are in a very special and sensitive position. They will be dealt with under their own code. I think that's most important.

We have done some restructuring of the act. I don't think it's of major importance. It can he referred to in committee. There is a new section on personal liability, paralleling the new section in the Municipal Act, which limits actions against police officers in the same way municipal employees are now protected while performing their duties.

In conclusion, this bill is a large step forward not only in ensuring that citizens' rights are better protected, but also in respecting the principle that policing is a local responsibility, that the chief constable continues to have an important role, that local police boards are of importance, and that we value our police. Just as we wish to have sunlight come into the way they conduct their investigations, we value their service.

MR. SIHOTA: I listened to that partisan applause when the Attorney-General finished. As I see it, the purpose of this exercise in debate is to try and bring about improvements to the Police Act, and changes that serve both the interests of the police — in other words, the body being investigated — and also the interests of the citizen who raises the complaint. I'm going to be making my comments with that objective in mind. I'll talk a bit in broad philosophical terms, or perhaps lay out some broad principles, and then proceed with some suggestions for appropriate change. It's my view that the act falls short in some instances.

I want to say, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I've had the opportunity to work under what I would call the old Police Act, which is the current Police Act subject, of course, to the passage of Bill 21; I'll keep calling it the old Police Act. I've had occasion as a lawyer to work with the old Police Act, and in that process I've worked with those who are the recipients of complaints — in other words, the police officer in question; I've represented the police officer involved. I've also represented citizens who are making complaints, one way or

[ Page 4860 ]

the other, under the provisions of the Police Act. I haven't engaged in that exercise on an ongoing basis, just from time to time. I think that that experience serves me well in commenting on the debate that's about to take place on the Police Act.

The Attorney-General started by making comments with respect to recognition of the value of police and the onerous obligations of those who are asked to serve, and choose to serve, in that capacity. We recognize that as well on this side of the House. I know that my predecessor in the Legislature from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was a member of a police force and spent a fair time representing policemen in panels and throughout the complaint procedure, and knew their point of view. Philosophically we come from the perspective that the police are, as a whole, honest, reliable, competent and trustworthy. Society has a high perception of people involved in that field of endeavour. They are held in high esteem, and that should be the case. That type of public confidence ought not to be eroded in any fashion whatsoever, and the purpose of legislation ought to be to maintain the high standing of police not only in the public's mind but in my mind as well.

One has to ask whether or not, when we're dealing with the sticky issue of complaints — which I know, from my experience, vary from totally frivolous complaints on one hand to legitimate complaints on the other.... We have to maintain, first of all, that justice is both done and seen to be done, and secondly, that the integrity of the individuals under the microscope is protected. I have had nothing but positive experiences with people involved in various police forces throughout this province.

It seems to me that legislation of this sort has to walk a bit of a tightrope. It has to be sensitive, first of all, to the concerns of police; that's what my experience has taught me. Let me put it this way. There's a view among the police that there are certain elements in society that take some pleasure in triggering unwarranted allegations against police officers; hence a feeling among police that they're always under the gun and more susceptible to vexatious claims than others. There is a feeling that the process currently in place is frustrating and stressful on police officers, and in an underlying way, although never stated, appears to question their loyalty to the law and the process of upholding the law.

On the other side of the equation there are citizens who are frustrated by interminable delays in a process and a procedure that they don't quite understand, and a feeling, as I said before, from the citizens that justice must both be done and seen to be done, and a feeling that any piece of legislation that deals with police complaints ought not to be slanted or biased in favour of one group or the other.

The test, then, for any legislation of this nature is to ask yourself whether or not the act balances those competing interests: the citizen on the one hand, who wants a fair and expeditious process; the police on the other hand, who do not want any abuses; and a process which, from the police perspective, does not undermine the disciplinary authority of local police chiefs. Having said all that, there is of course not only the interest of the police and the complainant involved, but the public interest as well, which expects a system that ensures justice is done at the end of the day. That is what must be taken into account in assessing whether or not the legislation before us today meets all the concerns of all the constituent groups, and particularly the public interest.

It is my submission that this legislation falls short of what is required, and that what is required here is a truly independent dent complaint process. That's what is missing from the legislation before us. It's important that there be a truly independent system of people who make these determinations with respect to police complaints — a system that is easy to follow and understand for the person who is dealing with the legislation, whether it be the citizen involved or the police officer.

I should say at the outset that it is just not my own view that the legislation before us fails to adequately walk the tightrope which I am sure both I and the Attorney-General are very sensitive about. In its editorial of May 9, the Vancouver Sun said: "... Bill 21 would perpetuate the present system under which the police investigate themselves. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, such a system neither satisfies the public interest nor encourages respect for the police." That's not my view, but the view of the Vancouver Sun. I guess it represents the philosophical point of view that police officials and members are often very sure of their integrity and diligent in carrying out their duties. If that diligence and surety is there, they have little to worry about, it would seem to me, in a truly independent system that moves away from being one wherein the police are invited to investigate themselves.

On the topic of that process, in an editorial on May 9 as well, the Vancouver Province stated: "Its hallmarks were delays, complainant confusion, frustration and dissatisfaction, and a generally unsatisfactory attitude by police toward the complaint process." I guess the concern among many is whether or not that will be equally true of the new process. I think the new process is an improvement, a step in the right direction, and it endeavours to eliminate some of the frustration and dissatisfaction. However, in my view that process falls short of what is really required to minimize the confusion, the frustration, the dissatisfaction and the attitude referred to in both of those editorials. It's not sufficient, in my view, for me to simply say that it falls short. It's imperative that I give some reasons as to why I think the system falls short and say where I think it suffers.

I want to deal with some of the specific matters that fall within the purview of this legislation: what are the failings and what needs to be bolstered? Before I do that, I should say — and I've commented on this publicly — that the legislation tries to walk a tightrope. The Attorney-General appreciates the need to balance those competing interests. The legislation is an improvement over what we have had before, but it falls short — and in some ways significantly short — of what is required to make sure that full public confidence is maintained with respect to police complaints.

What are the failings? First of all, they relate to the complaint commissioner. The Attorney-General, in his opening comments, went to some length to talk about the complaint commissioner and the powers accorded to him. As I listened to those points — albeit that it was a little noisy in here while I was trying to listen to what he was saying — their thrust, if I can put it this way, really seemed to be to try to attach additional trappings of independence to the powers and abilities of the commissioner by highlighting the indicia of independence, to try to create the impression that the position is significantly independent. I would say that's not the case.

I'm not going to go out of my way to deal with each of the indicia of independence the Attorney-General indicated, but if you look at the legislation — I know we will get to clause by-clause debate — the duties of the commissioner are defined under section 50 as being to receive complaints; to record complaints; to establish and maintain a record of

[ Page 4861 ]

complaints; to inform, advise and assist complainants; to monitor the handling of complaints; and to inspect annually the records, operations and systems of administration. They go on to say that he may advise disciplinary authorities and request a reinvestigation of a complaint. So the operative words throughout the legislation are passive words. "Receive," "record," "maintain," "monitor," "advise," "recommend" and "advise" are the critical words that accompany the trappings of power provided to the complaint commissioner under part 9, section 50 of the legislation.

[3:00]

The complaint commissioner does not have the authority to order his own investigation. I think that's the crux here. The power that's accorded to the complaint commissioner is no more than simply a monitoring, overseeing power. It's a little bit like standing at a desk and making sure that all the paper passes over in the appropriate fashion. It's a little bit like a trial coordinator in a courthouse, who simply makes sure that everything's filed properly and has the right stamps and seals on it and that the time lines are being obliged; there is little more than that. That's not to demean the people who do trial coordinators' work. It's simply to use an example of the work that's being provided here to the complaint commissioner, The trial coordinator, for example, cannot go into court and actually handle the case. The trial coordinator cannot look beyond the paperwork and do his own investigation. The same applies here with respect to the complaint commissioner.

It is an astonishingly passive set of responsibilities, when one considers that the purpose of this legislation was to establish some type of independence in the process and to remedy the problems that we saw under the old legislation — as I referred to it. There is little or no power, in the real sense of the word. There is only a monitoring of activities. The complaint commissioner can't even formally request an investigation of a complaint. There's no power to make his own recommendations under the legislation.

The thrust of my submission — and I stand to be corrected on any of those, and I certainly invite the Attorney-General's response — is that the powers of the commissioner have little teeth. I think that the bite ought to be strengthened to provide additional powers, specifically the power to the commissioner to order his own investigation.

That's just one complaint about the provisions of the legislation, when I say that it's failing in several regards. It's also failing because the process referred to here is long, cumbersome and in some ways complicated. I was reviewing the legislation again today and looking at sections 50 to 66, which lay out the procedure, and it really is a somewhat long and complicated procedure. I don't think that serves anybody's interest. It doesn't serve the interest of the police officer who's under the gun and the stress and who is wanting to know the outcome. Nor is it expeditious and in the interest of the citizen to go through an internal system and then to a board and then to a commission and then on from there. I think that this multifaceted approach is just a little bit too cumbersome and not necessarily in the interests of all parties.

With respect to failings, there is another reason as to why that process causes some difficulty. The process has an ascending hierarchy of rigidity to it, if you look at it. It is a process which starts at the internal investigation by the police and then goes on to a board and then to the commission. It gets far more difficult to overturn decisions as you move up the scale of hierarchy with respect to each of these avenues.

Let's take a case of a legitimate complaint. I won't get into in any depth now, but I think that the Fullerton case, which the Attorney-General is aware of, is a legitimate case. If the Attorney-General is not aware of it, he will be aware of it by the time we finish this debate. What happens is that through an internal investigation — which, I would submit, has a tendency to work in favour of the officer.... I think the perception of it, from the position of the complainant, is that an internal investigation. because it's internal, does not allow for a full hearing, full representation and cross-examination, etc. The feeling of complainants.... As I said earlier, I've represented both police and complainants in the old process, if you can call it that, and the perception of complainants is that at that point they lose round 1. When you move to round 2. which is a board, it's fairly difficult to overturn the decision at round 1. because it's been made by the chief or someone in the department. and the board has, I think, a psychological disposition towards the people that administer its own board. It's not until it leaves that point in the journey that the system opens up a bit. What I’m saying is that by the time it reaches round 3 there's the perception that if you lost at round 1 and round 2 . there is again a psychological disposition to reinforce what happened at rounds 1 and 2.

I think it was Mr. Justice Dickson, now of the Supreme Court, in the Harelkin vs. University of Regina decision.... It involved a university student challenging the administrative hierarchy under natural justice rules, a senate decision not to allow him into social work, I believe — if I remember the case right. In any event, it's an oft-quoted administrative law case. Mr. Justice Dickson went to some length in that case to refer to this ascending rigidity in the system that makes it far more difficult to put aside a case. I can't put it across with the eloquence that the court did in the Harelkin decision. I believe it was Mr. Justice Dickson, but I'm really functioning from memory here. I think his point is well taken when one considers the process here in the Police Act, and that it's really later on that the process opens up for the complainant. I think that's a legitimate point, and a point that reinforces the need to have a truly independent commission.

So the third feeling is this sort of ascending hierarchy of rigidity, as I call it, which means that the further up you go, the road you're traveling crystallizes to the point that it's very difficult to overturn lower decisions.

To summarize the feelings to date: the complaint commissioner has little or no power: the process is too long; the process has an ascending hierarchy of rigidity; and fourth, it has a review mechanism which is not truly independent. I made that comment in my first submission. The fifth caught me somewhat off guard. and I'd like to hear the Attorney-General's comments with respect to this.

I was surprised when I looked at the legislation to note that the ombudsman is excluded from investigations under the act. If I recollect correctly, that's in the later portion of the legislation, where it says: "The Ombudsman Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations." Again, I would submit that if one wants to maintain a system that has some semblance of independence and gives the public a degree of comfort with respect to independence and knowing that it's not a truly internal system. then I see little reason to exclude the ombudsman. I'm at a loss to understand what public policy reason would allow for the exclusion of the ombudsman from the complaint process.

So we have a situation where police boards are still involved in the complaint process, the complaint commissioner

[ Page 4862 ]

does not have the authority to trigger his own investigations and the ombudsman is excluded. Accordingly, I don't think this legislation will satisfy those who have had unhappy experiences. Arguably it shouldn't be trying to satisfy them all; but it should be able to satisfy the legitimate one".

I've followed the Fullerton case with some interest and have talked to Mr. Fullerton on several occasions. I tried to run the Fullerton case through this piece of legislation as a test, to see how it would be dealt with. I tried to do it as fairly as possible before I concluded one way or the other where this legislation stood. My conclusion was that even if you took that case, the frustration and the concerns articulated by that person would not be remedied by the provisions of the Police Act.

It's not sufficient for me simply to complain and state what's wrong with the legislation, without stating some alternatives.

I see the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is signaling to me for a time-out and wanting me to wrap up. I should tell him that I was in his riding this weekend, and they're asking for a time-out from this government everywhere I went in Merritt. I talked to all 500 of my relatives there, and I know how they're going to vote next time. We've got the problem licked in Yale-Lillooet for the next....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: He probably got about half the votes from those people last time, and that was his margin of victory, but a little visit to the temple on Sunday morning remedied all those problems. I think Merritt is going to be good NDP territory come the next provincial election.

HON. B.R. SMITH: They like our policy on the Coquihalla there.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, they loved our policy on the Coquihalla. I told them very simply that we loved the road; we just didn't like the coverup, and they concurred in that.

Anyhow, to appease the member for Yale-Lillooet, who I'm sure is now worrying about his political future.... Perhaps he isn't. I'm just about finished here anyway. I'd interceded to use this speech to mail out to all these constituent groups I'm talking about, but now that you people have managed to interrupt me, I guess I can't do that — at least without editing.

It's not good enough simply to criticize the legislation without talking about some appropriate remedies and some things that can be done in this regard, Mr. Speaker. I think there are some alternatives, and we've seen those alternatives in place in other jurisdictions. We've seen that in Ontario, and even at the federal level, they have a far greater independence with respect to the investigation of police and police complaints. That legislation provides British Columbia with an alternative, and it would also mean that in this area British Columbia would not be heading into uncharted waters but would be in areas that other jurisdictions have waded into and found not to be a major problem. I must confess that there were some problems in Ontario this year with respect to one discipline action, but on the whole I understand the system has worked quite well.

There are alternatives, and what we will be doing as this debate progresses into committee stage is moving a series of amendments with a view to doing what I said at the outset of my comments — improving the legislation. I would suspect that some of those amendments are going to be accepted, because they're just a matter of housecleaning and catching up on some of the rough edges of the legislation. Others, I think, will represent the difference of opinion between the two political parties with reference to this legislation.

I'm sure all that has been noted by the Attorney-General and his officials who are in the House now. I look forward to debate at third reading as we focus more and more on some of the sections with a view to putting forward amendments to remedy what I see as some of the flaws in this act, so that we can come out with legislation that British Columbians can be happy with and is an improvement over what's before the House.

I'm sensitive to the fact that my comments have been somewhat critical of the act. I must say that there are certain provisions of the act which we also welcome — and it isn't just the title.

[3:15]

I think the requirement in section 55 for status reports to be given a complainant 45 days after an initial complaint is laid and 30 days thereafter is a good provision. The provision in section 52 to allow citizens to direct their complaint to the senior constable on duty at the time the complaint is made is good. I think the requirement in section 59 that a summary of formal investigation and its results be forwarded to the complainant is welcomed, and that support should be provided for the remission of $500 in costs that may be awarded by a police board inquiry against a complainant or a police officer.

Those are all things in this legislation that one would welcome as well, Mr. Speaker. There certainly is a foundation here upon which to build a better piece of legislation.

I see that the government House Leader has left. Are you going to speak some more?

AN HON. MEMBER: The other leader left.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, the opposition House Leader has left. I'll terminate my comments there, under the expectation that we won't get into Agriculture estimates right way because I don't think I could hold the fort for that.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I know that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew likes this bill. He really has been very complimentary in his own dry, discerning way. He's brought together his Socratic talents, which he learned so well in his profession, and he's given us a speech here about the bill, which has really, if you look at it, been quite constructive.

He's absolutely correct that it is walking the tightrope, that you do have to balance the interests of the public to know and make sure that things are done in the open and that sunlight gets into investigations into police, with the necessity of providing a structure and protection for a community that is very constantly under assault and performs very difficult functions. That's precisely what we've tried to do.

What I want to just say to him by way of closing is that our approach, I think, has gone far enough. I think that this member, if he has a little more faith and patience in this process, will be very pleased with the result because we've gone further than the RCMP national bill has gone, considerably further. The RCMP procedures are now coming into force. As soon as they have their committee in place and

[ Page 4863 ]

choose their complaint commissioner, we hope — and I'll say in this House, because I think it's important — that the complaint commissioner under our act and the RCMP complaint commissioners will be one and the same person so we will have uniformity of treatment for police in terms of personnel and in terms of procedure in this province.

In this province, two-thirds or 60 percent or more of the police will be dealt with under the RCMP rules, and the rest, the 12 municipalities that have their local forces — the largest of which is Vancouver — will be dealt with under ours. I think it would be a very positive start if we had the same individual administering both functions under the federal act and under the provincial act. That's the view that I've taken with my counterpart, Mr. Kelleher, and I've urged him that we have a cooperative joint appointee carrying out the two.

MR. ROSE: With two sets of rules?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, two sets of rules, but they're very similar. The difference between the national process and ours is not great, but the national RCMP procedure is that they have a national public complaints committee which is struck nationally. Then they have an RCMP complaint commissioner in this province who they will appoint. If there's a complaint against an RCMP constable under the new national procedure, what happens is exactly the same as here.

In the first instance, the RCMP investigate that complaint themselves, just as they do now. Under the new bill they investigate it themselves, but at the same time, the national committee has the power to institute an investigation at any time. They can do so after the RCMP have investigated, or they can do so in lieu of one, or even during, which is exactly the same power that our B.C. Police Commission has on the advice of the complaint commissioner.

If the complaint commissioner, under our procedure, decides that he doesn't like the course of the local police investigation — it's not getting anywhere; it seems to be in a dead-end — then he can just say at a given time: "B.C. Police Commission, I think that you should step right in and have a full independent investigation." He can recommend and direct that. That's the same thing that happens under the national act.

Our B.C. Police Commission has greater statutory power than the national committee does because all the national committee can do after their investigation is make recommendations to the RCMP. Our B.C. Police Commission can step right in and take disciplinary action. I think we've got a slightly tighter and better process, but we have modelled the procedure as best as possible to dovetail with the RCMP procedure. The two of them are going to be on trial together in tandem. They're going to have to work together, so I say let's have the same body being the complaint commissioner for both. I hope that the member will support me in that. I think this is good policy.

This system, I think, is going to work well. It's true that this complaint commissioner that we're appointing isn't going to be able to go out with his own army of investigators and de nouveau start investigations. There are some who would like us to go that far, but we're not going that far. It is also true that that complaint commissioner, by getting a copy of every complaint, by having access to the police files as he will do and never has done before on a case-by-case basis, by being able to order the reinvestigation of a complaint, which he will be able to do to the local police force, he will be able to request a full inquiry by the Police Commission. which will have independent resources available to them under staff contract or seconded at any time to launch a full, separate investigation at any stage — even before, if they wish to, a local police investigation.... If, for some extraordinary reason, there was absolutely no purpose in that force launching an investigation. the complaint commissioner would make that recommendation.

I really believe that the fears about this bill that have been expressed in a few editorials.... I remember that when I introduced the changes to the bill, I also had some very positive and favourable comments. Understandably, those who write editorials and whose job it is to comment on what we do look at what we do in the light of the few horror stories that have happened. There is no doubt the Jacobsen case was a horror story of what can happen in the justice system. We just have to have a few like that and people begin to lose confidence in the system. It's up to us to ensure that confidence is restored.

I went to the Supreme Court of Canada a year ago in person and argued before that court — as Attorney-General — that the province had to have the power to launch investigations into police. We won that power in Jacobsen. We preserved that power. and that investigation having been stalled for a couple of years by lawyers finally went forward. Now we are going to have a report on the Jacobsen inquiry. It may not get to the bottom of it. but at least we had a full independent inquiry before the B.C. Police Commission.

The Jacobsen case, as everybody knows, was the case of the fellow who was alleged to have been beaten up while in custody in the Vancouver cells, and nobody could come forward and say who did it. There seemed to be strong evidence that it happened when he was in custody, but nobody would say who did it. "It wasn’t me; it wasn't him; it wasn't somebody else." It went through the whole route. It went through a local investigation, and it went through a hearing before a local board. It had court cases involved in it, and it took far too long.

Under this process, there is going to be a marked improvement. I believe that this bill has balanced the tightrope, and the member will find that it will work as well as — and probably better than — the national procedure under the RCMP. I have great pride in moving second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Police Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. B.R. SMITH: The Land Title Amendment Act is really part of the Sechelt Indian band self-government initiative. The band now owns its reserve lands as a result of federal legislation passed in 1986, and it now wishes to register its lands under the provincial Torrens system to afford the band and the third parties dealing with it all the benefits and protections that the Land Title Act can convey in connection with real estate transactions. The legislation is

[ Page 4864 ]

designed to accommodate the Sechelt aspirations specifically and can be made applicable to other bands who elect to follow the Sechelt model of title registration.

This legislation adds a new part to the Land Title Act, rather than being cast in the new enactment specific to the Sechelt. This legislation represents the general policy of the government concerning the registration of title to Indian reserve lands. The major provisions of this bill focus on the constitutional law issues relating to the application of provincial law to the ownership and possession of Indian reserve land and the entry of that land into the Torrens system for the purposes of title registration.

Both involve the application of complex legal principles to achieve the ultimate goal of certainty, security and facility of ownership of Indian reserve lands. Decisions of the courts have in recent years raised significant doubt as to the extent to which provincial law can apply to the ownership and possession of lands reserved for Indians. These lands fall within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government by virtue of section 91(24) of the British North America Act.

The division of legislative powers embodied in the Canadian constitution makes it impossible for the provincial government acting alone to address the uncertainty to the extent required for a clear application of provincial land title registration to Indian land. These complex issues became more apparent to us during the discussions with the Sechelt band and the federal government, preparatory to enacting the self-government legislation in 1986. Another obstacle was the fact that an Indian band, in the eyes of the common law, is not a legal entity. Again, the problem was beyond the legislative power of the province to resolve. So the bill has to have its footing in federal legislation, which, firstly, constitutes a specifically named band as a legal entity: the Sechelt Indian band.

Secondly, the federal legislation delegates legislative power to the band to pass a law adopting as its own the laws of the province respecting land title registration. If you hear native leaders saying that this bill somehow abandons other Indian bands, or casts them in a certain way, or makes them do something that's detrimental to their concept of self-government.... It doesn't at all, because before you can invoke this land registration system, you not only have to have federal legislation but the band itself has to pass autonomously a bylaw that invokes the provincial land registration scheme.

The province isn't saying to every native band in this province: "This is the way you've got to go or you're not going to get anywhere." Other bands may have another process they want to follow. They can set the course of their own destiny, but the Sechelt band, an autonomous band that has development plans of its own and specific things it wants to do with the waterfront.... They have ideas as to how to provide housing and benefits for their own citizens and things they want to do with that land which require registration, because they cannot sell strata interests or leasehold interests — whatever it is they're going to do with that land — unless they can offer certainty of title, unless they can have the benefits of mortgage financing.... What we're saying is that native bands and the members of those bands are citizens of Canada and British Columbia, and they're entitled to those rights.

[3:30]

The whole objective of this process of allowing a band to enter into the land registration scheme of the province is to ensure that the existing fee simple estate of the band, together with all existing lesser interests such as leaseholds, mortgages and so on, will enter the provincial system in accordance with the Torrens principles that govern all land in this province. As such, the entry process is critical to the establishment of a clear route of title to these estates and interests and the securement of public acceptance of and reliance upon the integrity of the title register.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Owing to the fact that some Indian land entered the system before the constitutional law problems were identified and articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, the entry process described in the bill is of necessity more precise than was first thought necessary. But the process is similar to that by which provincial Crown land enters the Torrens system for the first time. The bill offers greater flexibility to the band by allowing it to subject to the Torrens system only those parts of its land for which the registration is necessary for business reasons. They can keep the rest out if they want.

The key steps in the entry process are as follows: firstly, the patent — that is, the federal Crown grant by which the band acquires a fee simple estate — is filed in the land registry office. This filing does not constitute actual registration, but allows the band to register all or part of its reserve lands thereafter.

Secondly, the band itself identifies an area of the reserve that it wishes to register and passes a law authorizing the registration to occur.

Thirdly, the band makes application to the land title office for a registered fee simple title. That application will be supported by the appropriate survey plans and Indian land registry certifications necessary to identify the area covered by the title and to preserve existing interests in accordance with Torrens principles.

Fourthly, on registration the title is subject to the Torrens system for all purposes of provincial law.

The result of this unique legislative procedure is that it preserves the federal constitutional character of Indian reserve land on the one hand while subjecting it to provincial land title registration on the other. It does so by consent of the band — not by action of the provincial or federal government, but by consent and at the wish of the band. That's what's so important. It satisfies the concerns of native Canadians to whom existing constitutional immunities attaching to their land is a vital instance of their ownership. It also allows the precise legal conveyancing rules that underlie the Land Title Act and related provincial statutes to operate as effectively for natives as they do for other Canadians.

Of further greater significance, a registered title to Indian land will now carry with it all of the statutory assurances and guarantees applicable to other registered titles. There are only three exceptions to this. The first relates to existing trust or fiduciary obligations attaching to Indian land that by their nature are not capable of registration under the land title scheme. This trust interest will not be registered or guaranteed. The second relates to the continuance of the adoptive legislation passed by the band itself, which cannot be guaranteed by the province because the band might change its mind later and has the right to do so. The third only applies to those interests which during the entry process may be found to be unregisterable. This includes some forms of traditional Indian tenure, such as rights of occupation that are held by

[ Page 4865 ]

band members. These tenures are not intended to be registered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In summary, the full benefits of the B.C. land registry Torrens system will now apply to Indian land that becomes registered in the land title office at the instance of the band. The ingredients of the bill, while highly technical, are absolutely showpiece legislation in this country, I think, to establish the right of a band to take this kind of move forward if it wishes to do so, and this process is a model of total cooperation federally, provincially and band-wise.

Despite the complexities of legal principles involved, we have come up with a clean and simple procedure to register Indian land in this province. This in large part is due to the assistance given by the Sechelt people themselves to the realization of this process. The day the bill was introduced, the chief and a number of the band elders came down here and were in the gallery. There has been tremendous cooperation and a great feeling of pride on the part of the Sechelt people. On behalf of the government and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who has given us a good deal of assistance as well, I have great privilege in recommending this bill to the House for passage.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General described this as showpiece legislation, and it will be the centrepiece, I would suspect, of a constitutional challenge somewhere along the line. When the Attorney-General introduced the bill in the House — whenever it was — the first thought that flickered across my mind was that someone was going to challenge it somewhere along the line constitutionally. I don't know. I'm certainly not going to pretend I am Ron Cheffins and can talk all day about the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. Knowing Professor Cheffins, I'm sure he will probably get some student somewhere — if he is still teaching — to write a paper on it, and it will probably be the background of someone's argument one day in court.

I will be very short in my comments about this legislation, because I am still thinking about it and I haven't had a chance to talk to our critic in this area, who is not here today and whose advice I would look to before committing myself one way or the other on this piece of legislation.

I understand what the legislation is trying to do. I fully understand what is being planned here and I fully appreciate the fact that the triggering action here is a decision of the band. If you don't have the band as a party, then the whole matter of patent and registration of the Torrens system is not triggered. That's where the control valve should be, obviously. Given the historical nature of Indian lands in this country, if bands want to move away from the special privileges that they have now with respect to land, then it really ought to be a band decision first and foremost.

Secondly, let me say this about the legislation. I would suspect that if someone is going to challenge it constitutionally, that would come only after the following scenario: a band would default on a mortgage and action would be taken on the covenant to pay; there would be a judgment and the financial institution would then try to secure an interest in land or take ownership of land upon the issuance of an order absolute. I can just see an issue arising at that time about the authority of the band in the first place to enter into it and the constitutionality of the legislation which allowed the band to do that. I suspect that it would be at that point that one would see a litigation on it. Let's hope that that doesn't happen. but that was my first thought when I heard this legislation being introduced.

On the other hand. there is an advantage to this as well. I talked on the previous legislation about my experience; I can certainly say that in terms of my own experience as a solicitor — which is limited — I can remember being involved and I have met with others who have been involved in situations where they were acting for bands and a band wanted to engage in housing construction or upgrading on a parcel of land it owned and made an application for financial assistance from a financial institution, be it a bank or a credit union, and was turned down because the nature of the lands in question were not such that a financial institution, for obvious reasons. would be interested in advancing sums of money, without some type of greater security than land. In some ways that inhibited the ability of bands to engage in economic renewal or economic development on their property. The thought behind the legislation which allows for parcels of land to be registered would in a practical way deal with that very practical problem that I saw and others have seen during the course of acting for bands.

This bill really has two sides to it — like any other coin, I guess. I can immediately see some advantages in the legislation; I can also immediately see some downsides in the legislation with respect to its constitutionality. I'm sure it fits in nicely with all of the jurisprudence right now on the matter, and none of us can crystal-ball it into the future.

That's all I would care to say at this stage of debate on it. After further dialogue with my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), I will be making submissions again, probably at committee stage, with respect to improvements if necessary, and maybe even a comment at third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Those comments are certainly fair comments, because no minister today can give guarantees that some febrile constitutional legal mind, in the current era of Charter cases, will not be able to make an argument that will go the distance of the court system in this country. I must say that the courts will no doubt have regard for the good utility and common sense of the process.

Since it rests on delegated legislation and it rests on the power of the province to legislate for property and civil rights and to provide a registration system, as we do for all other citizens, it would seem very impractical if the federal government cannot delegate the authority to do this kind of thing, this entry into the scheme. It has often been argued that natives are creatures only of federal law and that they are covered only by federal law: that they live somehow in some kind of federal enclave and are not citizens of the province. Yet there are lots of court decisions that have held that they are citizens of the province, that they do....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's right, but they need licences to get married; they want certifications; they want to take benefit of provincial legislation and provincial schemes of social assistance and education. All these things should be available to natives, who may be federal citizens in another right.

[ Page 4866 ]

I think there's very good common sense, as well as very good jurisprudence, for saying to a band: "You can enter the twentieth century, and indeed the twenty-first century, and develop your land in a leasehold way, the way you want to." We're talking only about reserve land. I emphasize that; we are not talking about native land claims. We are not talking about any process that in any way undercuts or undermines arguments that native leaders may want to make in the political arena or in the courts about their land claims. We are talking about reserve land, land that belongs to the band, in a way, but under the old law has only belonged to them under the permission of the superintendent of Indian affairs in Ottawa — a remote functionary, disembowelled from the band, somebody they had to go through to get his permission for the smallest transaction. The bureaucracy involved for bands to deal with their land through that official was incredible, and the member knows that, if he's done law in that area. Dealing with Indian Affairs on minor matters involving the superintendents of band lands was often an impossibility.

They're going to be freed from that by federal legislation. By their choice they opt into this scheme, and then they can register their land and sell leasehold interest — as I understand what the Sechelt band want to do. They want to keep the fee, and more power to them; I think that makes a lot of sense. It will be their development choice. They're going to sell leasehold interests. They'll be able to give security of registration. That should be their choice.

I have great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Land Title Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $254,982.

MR. ROSE: I'd like the government House Leader to stay a second if he could, because I'm going to have something to say that I tried to get on question period. That's why I was so nettled when we only got two questions; it accounted for some of my acrimonious tone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Speak for two minutes, and I'll be right back.

MR. ROSE: All right. I'll do this. Your ears can burn wherever you're going.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Tell me about marketing boards.

MR. ROSE: No, I'm not going on to marketing boards right away. No, it concerns a story about the minister saying he was cool to a migratory site down on Boundary Bay or Mud Bay in the minister's riding. This has to do with the removal of greenbelt lands established by W.A.C. Bennett — in advance, by the way, of the Land Commission — and transfer of them to the Ministry of Lands and Forests, presumably to sell to farmers for farming.

We know what happens to farmland in that neck of the woods. We know about Terra Nova. On the one hand we exclude 800 acres, then we remove from greenbelt almost 400 acres — in that general area — for farming. Come on! This is absolutely contradictory, in my view.

I have some questions to ask the minister. The Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says: "Maybe this kind of Ramsar convention for waterfowl is not something cabinet is taking to." Cabinet hasn't said no, but the minister says that cabinet is cool to the migratory site request. While the minister was out, I was saying that this will add presumably to the stock of farmland to be sold for fee simple.

What worries us is that that's exactly what Terra Nova was. It was a site of about 800 acres that has gone to one of the Premier's friends at a tremendous windfall gain. It was bought for about four million bucks, and it's going to sell for 40 million bucks. What assurance do we have from the Minister of Agriculture that the same thing isn't going to happen once we pry these lands loose? Remember, greenbelt was an invention of the late W.A.C. Bennett. It doesn't just apply down in the lower Delta area; it also applies in Aldergrove and places like that. That's the first question I want answered.

The second question I have is: does the Minister of Agriculture, under whose authority those lands lie...? This sudden transfer was done in April when nobody was looking. Did he approve of this land being removed from the protection of greenbelt, and does he support it? That's question number two.

Question number three is: does the Ministry of Agriculture have any studies to show that this land is economically viable for farming? I'm going to go on and talk about farm income in a little while. I know our friend from Okanagan South talked about farm income last Friday. I want to know if there's any study on whether it is needed for fanning in that area.

I mean, we just yanked Spetifore out. We had the Spetifore amendment a little while ago. This whole attack on farmland in that comer of British Columbia, I think, is pernicious. They want to create what is needed to preserve, really, a kind of.... It's on a flyway. It's important for I don't know how many species of waterfowl and migratory birds. I could name some of them, but I won't bore you with that. You know them as well as I do. That is not important; that isn't the issue.

Those three questions, I think, are worth considering, and I'm waiting here with bated breath for the answer.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my hon. critic, the first one was relative to the greenbelt. You referred to the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett's era, when a lot of those farms were bought up by the government of the day. They varied throughout the constituency, if you can just use our own constituency as an example. In fact, there were a number of locations.

You asked if they were dedicated for migratory birds or whatever. That wouldn't change, because what we have

[ Page 4867 ]

here.... I could name several farmers in the community who have been there for years and years and who decided to leave the land. In one case, for example, their son is now back wanting to be a farmer. He would like to have the opportunity to purchase that farm so that he in turn can pass it on to his family. That's what we're talking about here: turning it over to the Ministry of Lands to sell back to the farmers. It is not to be taken out of the ALR; it's still within that zoning. It's not in jeopardy, as far as I'm concerned, relative to an application for removal. It's designed in the community plan, and it's right near the Mud Bay mudflats which are, as you quite accurately quote, so sensitive to the migratory bird system of the Pacific flyway. I really believe there is no jeopardy to that. If I can use our own farm, the 800 acres that we farm on is all used by migratory birds, but it varies throughout the whole area.

I think the other question you asked was whether I supported the transfer. Yes, I do, if farmers can have access to ownership of their own land, and I believe they should have. When some of those families left there and the government bought it.... If other farm families come along and request that they have an opportunity to purchase that farm back, I think they should be given that opportunity.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister telling us then that sales to previous owners are the only ones that will be considered?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, that doesn't quite say the same thing. It says it is to be used for farming, but the point of the minister's answer — or at least the emphasis that he seemed to indicate to us — was that it's some dispossessed son who is back now and wants to farm. You could lease back under greenbelt anyway and continue farming. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Sure.

MR. ROSE: Then what is the purpose of transferring it out again, because I think it leaves it at risk. Will it go beyond that particular corner? Does it apply to all greenbelt operations now — the ones in Aldergrove, Langley, the lower Fraser Valley? So all the greenbelt stuff is now up for sale?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That's the policy issue that we discussed: most or all of the greenbelt land if a farmer wishes to purchase it.

You mention "lease." I don't think there's anything wrong with a farmer having a right to purchase his own farm, quite frankly. It doesn't matter whether he is leasing it or he was the previous owner, or his parents were the previous owners. The issue here is that it's still in the agricultural land reserve and will be used for farm purposes. In some cases farmers left the land, and other families decided to come on and try farming. Should they not have the same right to purchase that land?

MR. ROSE: I'm not objecting at all, except that they once sold their land to the greenbelt and left farming. That's how it occurred. Nobody came in and confiscated that land in the first place; they freely gave it up. Now they want it back because it's worth megabucks.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It must be, because $20,000 an acre was what the Ilich family paid for the Terra Nova land. Is that a viable price for farming? You're charging about $10,000 an acre for Colony Farm. It's not going as farmland for that price.

We want to make sure what's going on here, because we don't have any confidence in ELUC. As the minister well knows, this is a method where you can take a parcel of land that's been designated agriculture. get a council to go to cabinet, and 75 times out of 100 cabinet approves. What's to prevent those lands from being sold to a farmer? Ultimately in private hold, they can now be subdividable. The ALR isn't any protection anymore. Just ask the folks around Terra Nova. It's no protection at all. Seventy-five percent of the cases that have gone through ELUC in the last three years have passed. I don't know what the minister's stand is on it, but every time I ask him he says: "Well, I wasn't at ELUC when that happened. I was somewhere else. I was travelling."

I don't see what's wrong with making it a bird sanctuary. That doesn't mean it can't be used for farming. Lots of birds use other places that are used for farming. I understand that. This is an international convention by the United Nations. The Minister of Environment and Parks has a Ducks Unlimited motion on the order paper, and we're going to debate it on Wednesday afternoon. But we want to make sure those things are protected. Once they're in greenbelt they're in greenbelt, but once they're in farming there are all kinds of buildings, they're subdividable, and ELUC is no protection at all to us. The general public is extremely worried about this, and the record of the Government and the ministry, while the minister has been minister, is not good on this subject.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I didn't want to have to remind the member opposite that in 1973 my grandfather's farm was expropriated by the NDP government, and he lost 365 acres of perfectly good farmland to Tilbury industrial park. I believe that logic has to fall back as to why it was done that way. You have to ask yourself.

To say I haven't said my piece as part of ELUC.... Let me assure you that I, knowing the value of food production and its base in this province, have represented the farming community very well, I believe, in what is supposed to be good farmland. I can tell you that there's an awful lot of land in the ALR zoning that maybe should not be in there. It should be fine-tuned and looked at again.

I can tell my opposition critic another thing. The fact of the matter is that over 90 percent of the applications for the zoning changes — and that's what I call ALR: a zoning within the province — are dealt with by the Land Commission itself. Very few ever come to ELUC.

MR. ROSE: I know that members of the government are always quick to point out the Tilbury Island case. Is that the only one you've got where the wicked socialists confiscated land? Since 1974 there has been a net loss of 27,000 hectares of agricultural land. That's as big as the city of Vancouver. So I don't think your record is all that great.

The wetlands habitat committee and the provincial wildlife branch talked about protecting these lands. Who's in charge? Is Environment in charge? Is it now turned over and no longer part of the Ministry of Agriculture? Who's in charge here? Environment said they were going to protect it. I'd like to know who's protecting it.

[ Page 4868 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If Environment, through Ducks Unlimited, finds it necessary to dedicate an area for wetlands reserve — or whatever they wish to call it — that's fair enough. That does not change the agricultural zoning. The ALR still stays in place, and the farms are still being farmed.

MR. ROSE: I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat any more that we don't think the ALR is much protection. Once it becomes fee simple ownership, it can be subdivided; it can be chopped up. Right next door to it there's a great big subdivision down at Boundary Bay. The area all along Mud Bay could be up for grabs for another Terra Nova, a Superport, or whatever. There are tremendous pressures on that part of the country, and I recognize them; they are economic pressures and social pressures.

What I want is a commitment from the minister that he is going to fight and that we've got some protection for those things. I don't think the record has been very good, and I don't mean to be personal or mean or unfair. We've lost a lot of good land in Richmond, and we're afraid that we're going to lose some more. In addition to losing the land, we lose habitat protection, saltwater flats and all this stuff that is probably the only Mediterranean area we have in Canada. It's very important. In other words, greenbelt is gone. Goodbye greenbelt. Kaput, finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know about that.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know about it.

When the minister gets up, will he clarify whether these things can be sold to anyone who cares to bid on them — I know where there are lots of them — or just family members? Should we all rush out there right away?

[4:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, the policy is that if the former owner does not wish to purchase the property, the existing leaseholder will be given the first option. I think that's only fair, and I think it says from a policy point of view that we're still trying to keep it in agriculture, and that's the important thing. Whether a farmer makes a living under that enterprise remains to be seen. That's a management decision he has to make.

I'd like to inform the hon. member that on a number of issues, as they're dealing with ALR applications, when the application comes forward it has to be dealt with on the basis.... Over 90 percent of them are dealt with by the Land Commission, not ELUC. That's only the political appeal.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister is aware that when these parcels are put into the greenbelt.... Some of those people are still on those farms. Is that not the case?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps many of them are. What will the price differential be? Will they be able to buy back the property for what they paid for it, or will there be some other local assessment basis for the new price?

The minister shook his head when I said that. What will the price be?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The price will be present market value for farmland as it exists within the ALR.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps this matter could be revisited at another time. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people are really alarmed with this particular one because of its significance for wildlife and migratory bird habitat and saltwater marshes. We're really concerned about the wetlands....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It won't change as long as it's not subdivided and sent somewhere or put into another use. That's fine. We said we were not very happy or very comfortable with the powers of the Land Commission, especially with the appeals through ELUC. We're not happy about those, because if somebody well placed, who is a friend of a friend of a friend of the Premier, gets a little push in there, they will go just like Terra Nova for a windfall gain of $40,000 or whatever. That's what we're concerned about; we don't want another Terra Nova or some Superport down there.

I don't know how many Tilbury Islands it takes to make a Terra Nova, but I'm quite sure that the situations are quite different.

By the way, I notice the minister is advertising for a public affairs coordinator. One of his jobs is to "prepare speeches for ministerial use" and improve communication effectiveness in articulating government policy. Well, I think you really need it over this one. I was wondering if perhaps anybody could apply. Here it is: "Graduate from a university of recognized standing with a degree in agriculture" — I think I could probably qualify there; "preferably agricultural economics or economics with an agriculture undergraduate degree" — well, I wouldn't be so good on that one; "extensive experience or training in journalism — I'm pretty good as a journalist; "must be eligible for registration with the B.C. Institute of Agrologists" — I'm a little weak on that one, but I'm strong here: "Smoking restricted." I could probably qualify there.

I was just going to say, though, that you need a little image-buffing. That's one of the 67 vacancies, I take it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see the member for Okanagan South, and I'd like to quote him: "For some time, certainly longer than I have been a member of this Legislature...." He's known it's been difficult for apples and grapes. "But it really came home to me just a week or so ago when, on a weekend, a local fruit farmer phoned me and asked if he could borrow my tractor." I don't know what the member for Okanagan South is doing with a tractor; he should be the Minister of Agriculture if he owns a tractor. "When talking to him I asked why it was necessary: was his broken down, was it in the repair shop?" The reason was that he had sold his tractor to pay some bills. "In fact, that very afternoon he sold 20 lengths of irrigation pipe to buy groceries."

With friends like that in agriculture, you will really need a communications coordinator. You need a flack; you need a Sammy Glick, somebody who can really put you in business. Look, this is nothing to be joking about, but when the minister tells us that farm income is up 3 percent when inflation is 4 percent, that's not a very big record, or a good one.

Here's a friend of mine who voted for the member for Okanagan South. He said I could use his name here; his name is Art Day. The Day family has been in Kelowna for years and

[ Page 4869 ]

years. He served on the school board and is a supporter of the member for Okanagan South. He's writing to the Farm Credit Corporation:

"On June 1, 1988, our mortgage payments in the amount of $16,030.24 are due, However, I'm not prepared to borrow additional money from the bank to make these payments. Even at the disgracefully low rate of return for the 1987 crop, we should be receiving an additional $36,000 later in 1988. This will pay out our $20,000 bank loan from 1987 and our mortgage payment of $16,000, due June 1. I have previously written about the horrible way orchardists are being treated by our governments, so I won't belabour the point."

Well, I'll belabour the point, because that's one of your voters. He says how bad it is in there, and the minister has the audacity to say that things are great in agriculture, things are looking up. "We've got a few challenges," he says. You've got some challenges all right. You've got more than challenges; you've got poor farm income.

The same man wrote me the other day. He said: "We've lived on $9,000 a year" — his family. "Last year was our most productive year in our 22 years of growing fruit, since we produced 799 bins of apples." He goes on to say how great they were; I won't read it all. But what Mr. Day is saying essentially is: "We had our best year" — in other words, production is no problem — "but the prices were so rotten that we needed an extra 2 cents this spring in order to get going." He's gone away — he's gone mushroom-hunting or something like that — and he won't be back. He paid $20,000 in labour last year, so he's a contributor. So I think the minister knows things are very serious here.

Here are the farmers' requests before the Farm Debt Review Board. It's staggering: 32 percent are from orchardists, 25 percent from bee farmers and 24 percent from horticulturalists. Just wait till the snap-back comes in. What snap-back in free trade? Snapdragon is all that is.

Anyway, I think that's enough to establish the fact that, first of all, we're not spending.... It's only $24,000 on farm income assurance. That was explained because there weren't many calls, not that the thing had been downgraded and reduced to a point that that's all it was paying out — $60 million in the budget. It should be at least $40 million.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, it will be this year. It isn't just a case of markets. The minister knows it's return, isn't it? I think it's a declining commitment to agriculture, higher interest rates which should have put those rates up under that program, higher fuel costs and very poor prices. In 1986-87 it was a little better because inflation moderated.

There have been no improvements in the program for ten years. There is a scaled-down indemnity for costs over $20,000. In other words, you are chiseling on them. The $20,000 figure was set in the late seventies, so given inflation, you could increase it to $40,000 to restore approximately the same coverage that producers used to have when things were better. Labour rates do not really reflect the actual costs, although they are a lot cheaper than the Americans. Wait until you try that level of playing field on labour rates when we get free trade. The capital cost formula has not changed since my colleague in the NDP government brought in the scheme in 1973 and 1974. Definitely it's time for a review. I'd like to know whether or not the minister is undertaking that kind of a review of this.

Here are the assurance fund indemnities for 1986-87 — $17 million to beef producers. That was supposed to be a good year, I thought — 1986-87. It was better than the year before; it was $20 million the year before. The year before that it was $24 million. You have to go back to 1979-80 to get it anywhere under $1 million. Do I need to give any further reference than that to the members of your staff behind you? I'm reading from the farm income assurance fund indemnities.

Even berry producers got $3,000 last year, but they got a lot more — up to $2 million — in years before. Blueberries — nothing. Great stuff, going fine; that Colony Farm would make a great blueberry patch — better than a racetrack. Put the racetrack out in Surrey somewhere, as far as I am concerned — or Maple Ridge. You can go through the things and see the real losers here and people who haven't done very well — $1 million for a greenhouse, $6 million for orchardists.

I think I've made the point, so I wonder if the minister can.... The solutions to the pressure on land, the desire to get 3,800 acres out of the Okanagan that are in grapes and horticultural crops, and the pressures there really have a lot to do with farm income; as a matter of fact, everything to do with farm income. When the agricultural land reserve was brought in, it wasn't designed to freeze the farmers into peonage. People can't function being land-rich and cash poor, so the correlative piece of legislation was the farm income assurance — not insurance — based on the assurance principle.

It was thought at the time that if you're going to put people into these boxes. at least they should have the voluntary right to apply to have their incomes protected. We don't have any income protection-, naturally there is going to be pressure on people who are broke and into the banks and going bankrupt. The only asset they have is their land, but if we chop it all up and blacktop it, it's gone; it's pretty hard to farm blacktop. I wonder if the minister could talk about the review process.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, a lot of things were said about us advertising for a policy analyst and so on. Sure we are. I was taking heed of what you were saying. Maybe you would like to have one of the application forms: certainly the job is open for applicants.

[4:15]

I like to also remind you that we have some preliminary figures from Stats Canada as of last Wednesday that show B.C. farmers are estimated to have total cash receipts at a record $1.072 billion.

MR. ROSE: Is that B.C.?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. In British Columbia, the net farm operating costs have depreciated by 2 percent to $789.1 million. The net farm income rose by 7.3 percent over 1986, and it exceeded $300 million for the first time in history in this province. Additionally, between 1985 and 1986, net income — you can take a look at this figure — rose by an impressive 46.3 percent.

I agree with my hon. critic that some sectors are suffering. You quoted some numbers from the farm income assurance indemnity fund about what payments are made or not

[ Page 4870 ]

made. That is reflective only of the marketplace. The marketplace sets the market return, nothing else but that.

We have an insurance fund that takes up the difference between an established model operation, no matter what commodity it is, and it's agreed to between the farmers and the government. It's a model that they sit down and negotiate every five years, and the operating costs are adjusted, whether it's interest rates or fuels. No matter what it is, all operating costs are adjusted.

You asked about whether we are taking some under review. You talked about the cap at $20,000. A number of those things are under review, if that is the answer you are looking for.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I want to clarify something before I ask any questions. Some of my constituents have brought to me the issue of brand inspection fees in B.C. My investigations indicate that that is still under consideration, but I am not sure whether it is true. I talked to somebody who had come back from a meeting last week, and she seemed to indicate that you have now made a decision. Perhaps you could clarify for me what is happening with brand inspection fees. Are they going to go up? How much are they going to go up, and for what particular reason?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr., Chairman, to the hon. member, yes. You asked if the fees are going to go up. We have met with the brand inspection committee of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, and they have agreed with us that it will go from 50 cents to 75 cents effective July 1, 1988.

Whether it goes up further is a decision that will have to be made. That represents approximately 75 percent of the cost of the actual inspection. As I have said, we have met with the committee. I have discussed it in my office with them, and we have agreement on it.

MS. EDWARDS: Yes, Mr. Minister, I know that some members of the organization have accepted that agreement. There are still some other members of the industry who are not so happy with it. There are even some other organizations that are not totally happy with that decision — at least they weren't ahead of time.

In order to be able to explain, I want to understand the reason you're increasing these brand inspection fees. It has been put to me that brand inspection is a policing function. Like any other policing function, it isn't usually covered totally by the fees, which are often simply a part of the issue of setting up the system so that it can be policed.

There are a number of ranchers in my constituency who are suggesting that with the increased rural taxes and the indication that grazing fees are going to go up next year, although they didn't go up this year.... Irrigation rates and water licences have gone up, fees for installation of irrigation pipes have gone up, gas taxes and ARDA programs have been dropped and ICBC fees are up, and so on and so forth. Why in the world does the minister want to raise the rate for brand inspection, which is a policing function? There is no increased service, but there is an increase in the rates for brand inspection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It just reflects moving towards equating the costs of the service. That's the only reason that the brand inspection fee is going up. You can argue that policing for brand inspection is a provincial service, but it is also protection for the cattle producer as well.

MS. EDWARDS: Will the ministry then be doing some work to make the RCMP and the weigh-scale people more conscious of doing more brand inspection? There is a sense that the actual branding itself is frequently not inspected at the places where it could be inspected, and that there could be considerably closer rein on how these brands work if there were some stronger pressures, which would include education and perhaps some indication from the minister that he thinks that is a good idea.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: A lot of brand inspections are obviously done at point of sale, but spot checks are also done at many of the highway scales. You're saying that if you add more policing and more inspectors, you obviously add more of a cost. Then do you go back and say you have to have more return for the inspection? As I understand it from most reports, there is adequate policing out there. The only thing we are talking about here is getting more towards the cost recovery of that service.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will take that back to my constituents. I want to bring up another issue, and it is going to go back to the same issue you were talking about with my colleague the opposition House Leader, which s the issue of moving land out of the management of the Agricultural Land Commission and over to Forests and Lands.

I'm talking about the Steeples Ranch in the Cranbrook area. There are a number of concerns about that ranch. I know that if you've been minister for at least a couple of months you will have heard about the Steeples Ranch, because the people in my area have been wrangling about this ranch for years and years. I understand, Mr. Minister, that that ranch has now been moved out of the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and into Forests and Lands for disposal.

That piece of land was purchased in order to relieve range, and the range in the East Kootenay is the centre of considerable conflict, because it's a very delicate range, it is highly used and there is a great deal of pressure on it from both domestic and wild animals. The problem with the Steeples Ranch, as you probably know, is that it has not been close enough to where the particular pressure is to be appreciated the way it might have been. In fact, while it is here for farmers to use when they could be relieving pressure on other range, they usually have to move cattle some distance to get there.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The agricultural community, however, wants that land to stay in agricultural use. Over a number of years it has been found that operating it as a unit has not so far been an economic possibility. If it is now to be disposed of, is there any chance at all that this land, like other agricultural land in he East Kootenay, might be moved out of the land reserve? In other words, is there any possibility that it might be sold for something other than agricultural use?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As you rightly say, the land has been transferred to the Ministry of Forests and Lands, but no decision has been made at this stage as to whether we actually sell the Steeples Ranch or not. I believe that there are a number of discussions going on between our ministry and the

[ Page 4871 ]

Ministry of Environment and Parks relative to wildlife, etc., that graze on that ranch as well.

MS. EDWARDS: Could you give me an idea of who is involved in those discussions and when the decision will be made?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The decision, we're not sure. I can't reveal discussions that go on within cabinet, obviously, but the decisions have been taken to cabinet. All I can tell you is that no decision has been made at this point. But Environment staff and our own have discussed the issue back and forth on a number of occasions.

MS. EDWARDS: One of the things you're saying is that it is going on at cabinet level.

I want to repeat the concern of my colleague that there is not a great deal of faith that this land would be kept in the agricultural land reserve if there were more value to be had by taking it out. There's some fear that that will happen. In my area, where the conflict over range is so intense, it is a matter of considerable concern, and I would urge the minister to see that that land stays within the reserve so that it is available for use as range by either domestic or wild animals as the coordinator of range management planning can do it.

MS. MARZARI: In keeping with some of the comments made by the members for Kootenay and Coquitlam-Moody, I'd like to ask the minister about the lands around Boundary Bay and Mud Bay that were in greenbelt and which we now know are no longer in greenbelt and have been handed over to the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

You claim to the member for Kootenay that a particular greenbelt piece of land was not yet up for sale and that no decision had been made. Would you let me know whether or not the acreage around Boundary Bay and Mud Bay has been put up for sale, or are there still decisions to be made about that particular sale?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe those particular sites have been legally listed for proposal call for farmers who may wish to purchase those or existing leaseholders who may wish to purchase that farmland back. It does not include anything outside the dikes that belongs within the provincial system. They're not farmlands outside of that. That's part of that Ducks Unlimited $25 million proposal that came forward, as I recollect it.

MS. MARZARI: The main concern here is how far along in the process we've come. As you know, there are many people involved with the Fraser River Coalition and the 50 groups that belong to that coalition who have just recently been made aware that the order-in-council was passed in the first place. In fact, it's just come to that community's discovery, as it has come to mine in the last week, that an order-in-council in early April put those greenbelt lands up for sale. The concern is very deep; and I know the minister is going to be receiving many petitions and requests — phone calls, lobbyists — to remove that land from sale because no proper consultation has been conducted. As a matter of fact, the community has many things on its mind: the interconnectedness of the whole Fraser River estuary. All the proposals, the developments, the outfalls on that whole estuary concern literally hundreds and thousands of people in our community. So the discovery that the greenbelt lands might be under attack or going on the chopping block, as it were, in the next few weeks came as a surprise to that community. They are at this very moment mustering support and attempting to pull together the coalition. Last Thursday night, as a matter of fact, a meeting of over a hundred people congregated in Point Grey to discuss techniques that could be used to prevent this sale.

[4:30]

There is a very strong ecological concern around the sale of these greenbelt lands. The Fraser Valley Wetlands Habitat Committee met with the provincial wildlife branch not so long ago — my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody referred to this — and the wildlife branch assured the committee that these lands were worth protecting and would in fact be protected. So you can imagine that the Fraser River Coalition and its members have been dealing with many other issues — almost a hundred right now — concerning the Fraser River estuary and had put this on the back burner. It has recently come to their attention. as I said. that these lands are being sold.

My questions then to the minister: how much consultation have you had with the provincial wildlife branch? When did you talk to them about these lands? What did they say when you talked to them about these lands? And is there not a reason, now that you know these facts, to suggest that further consultation is required with the provincial wildlife branch and the citizens concerned?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I attended Fraser River Estuary Day yesterday — the official day — and I had not one single question relative to that, not one out of some 6,000 or 8,000 people who attended it. What has that to do with whether a farmer has a right to buy land back? I can't understand your line of questioning. Whether you designate something in the Ministry of Environment as an estuary area or a flyway or a wetlands area.... It's up to the province to make that designation, but I don't see what that has to do with a farmer having a right to purchase the land.

MS. MARZARI: In your mind, do you really consider it to be a question of farmers' rights to buy provincial land out of the greenbelt? From my understanding, the greenbelt was created in the very early seventies by your government to provide an environmental buffer around those bays. It was bought, I gather, as an attempt to pre-empt any later attempts for an agricultural land reserve. That's my information. In fact, those lands were bought and labelled "greenbelt" to provide some relief for the saltwater marsh at the mouth of the Nicomekl and Serpentine Rivers. The right of the farmer, as far as I'm concerned.... From what I've heard, the farmers laughed all the way to the bank when the province bought them out. Now the question is that the land is in the province's hands, the farmers are leasing those lands back at very reasonable rates; what's this business about the right of the farmers to buy their lands back? They're not their lands; they belong to the province. The province paid market value for those lands at the time. Is that your concern — the right of the farmer?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's not a question of the right. It's the right of any individual to own anything if they so desire. The point is, the greenbelt lands — it started, I believe, in 1969 — were bought for the purpose of those farmers who

[ Page 4872 ]

wanted to get out. It was a decision of the government of the day for...if you like to call it, similar to ALR. It had nothing particular to do with the wetlands proposal or a particular flyway for birds. It was a decision, where farmers wanted to get out of the business, that the government bought the land. They didn't designate at that stage that they were for that particular use. They were also bought to be used for farmland.

MR. STUPICH: The minister has one recollection of what happened starting in 1969; I have another.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were here.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe that makes a difference.

The greenbelt lands were purchased.... Coincidentally, they were all along highways, where people would see these signs: "Greenbelt land. " None of them were purchased to let farmers get out of it who couldn't get out of farmland any other way. They were purchased for political purposes: to make the government look as though it were doing something to preserve agricultural land. The Social Credit Minister of Agriculture of the day brought in a proposal to establish an agricultural land reserve in B.C. To his chagrin, if you like, the Premier thought it was a great idea, great politics, so he set up a committee of cabinet to look after it, to get it established, and left the Minister of Agriculture off that committee. That's how much agriculture was a part of that proposal. That's how much agriculture belonged to the greenbelt proposals. There were greenbelts for park purposes, greenbelts for various purposes, but all of it was so that people could see these nice signs along the highways: "Purchased by the government as part of the greenbelt of the province of British Columbia."

MR. ROSE: I think the problem here is one of trust. The minister says we're going to keep these as farm properties. Because of our recent experience — not that we don't trust the minister — somehow we don't find that answer reassuring. We don't suggest for one moment that he's dishonest in his presentation, but we've just found that these things have a way of eroding, to use a soil term, and that's what we're worried....

MR. MILLER: That's not a dirty word, is it?

MR. ROSE: No, it's not unparliamentary. It's just fine.

We're a little concerned. Last Thursday we heard that farm income had increased by 3 percent. Over the weekend it's gone up to 7.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gross.

MR. ROSE: Oh, gross. Well, that's quite different, isn't it? We just want to make sure that no one else is grossly misled on it.

I want to talk a little about free trade and agriculture for a while — like about an hour, so synchronize your watches. I'm concerned about it because we just finished talking about farm income, and I gave what I thought was a reasonably impassioned speech, and the minister said: "Well, yes, it's true. There are winners and losers. Some people are doing very well, thank you very much, and other people aren't doing very well, thank you very much."

Well, there are going to be winners and losers in the free trade thing too. We already know who at least some of them are. We know that they're the grape growers and the vegetable growers and the soft fruits. We don't think we have enough protection through the snap-back provisions. If that sounds like jargon, it is. It's a little device in the free trade deal to take care of what we lost, called seasonal tariffs, which I think applied for the difference between 36 and 52 weeks because of our seasonal disadvantage. The climate is not going to change under free trade. The only thing we don't have is, we don't have seasonal tariffs anymore. If we can get it into gear, which will take about a year, we might get a snapback in some of them. We might, and it's not the same kind of protection. A lot of people are very worried.

The government has sold them out on this. They've said: "Goodbye. You're terminal." Oh, no: we face a challenge, that's all; that's the government's attitude. You people are all so gloomy. Well, I think you have a right. The burden of proof, I think, rests with the government. Where are the winners? Who are they?

Anyway, there are going to be a lot of losers; at least there are going to be some losers. Maybe a lot in terms of numbers of people. We know how many grape growers there are in the Okanagan: 200 roughly, not counting the winery employees. I've got some figures on the vegetables. You might want to help them out with a program sometime when things get really ghastly. They're not bad now; there are winners and losers; but things can become very cruel. It's very cruel out there these days. It will be a challenge, and we're macho; we can overcome almost anything.

If the minister wanted to put through a program like he did recently on the apples for 2 cents a pound, under free trade he may not able to do that. Or on eggs — there's what would now be regarded as an export subsidy. That will be gone, perhaps, too. We have to be very careful about these things.

I'd like to ask the minister what I asked the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) the other day. I said: "I want to ask the minister whether under free trade it will be legal to give preferential treatment to Canadian companies as an industrial strategy." We can substitute the words, "...British Columbia farmers as a form of assistance or an incentive," and ask the minister: will this be allowed once we sign that full free trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In our discussions at NASDA — National Association of State Departments of Agriculture — as we related to the free trade agreement between the state secretaries of Agriculture and the provincial ministers, a number of programs were discussed as to what would be subjected to a countervailing action by the opposite trading partner. A number of things were talked about. Whether you call a program regionalization; whether you call it for development purposes, which is allowed in the U.S. and as far as I understand would not be challenged in Canada; whether you allowed a program that reduced.... You know the term "bottom loading," Mr. Member, which is commonly used. Whether it would be any less subject to an action by your trading partner than it would appear to be in the top-loading program — one where a direct payment may be made by a government body to a producer.... As near as we can tell from the reports we have — and we're trying to get these documented — any program that reduces a cost as opposed to directly making a payment for it is no less subject to a

[ Page 4873 ]

countervail action. It could be either way. It's the same in the U.S. Their programs could face the same things from our Canadian farmers or business people; we could launch an action against them. The issue as to whether one program in the United States is acceptable, say, or is not in Canada would eventually be settled by a tribunal if it couldn't be settled between the two countries.

I still come back to the point that we had a number of issues settled at our last round in Quebec City, one of which was a B.C. interest in mushrooms. A number of mushrooms were coming into this province from the Lynden and Everson area south of us, and we jointly agreed that what they were doing was wrong.

MR. ROSE: Why?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: They made the price less in Vancouver than they did in the Seattle market.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That's right, but....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: House Leader of the opposition, would you please continue.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister got the point. The point is that the difference between a subsidy or an incentive and dumping is quite clear. We have seasonal tariffs not because we're concerned about dumping, because our run is just starting at the tail-end of the U.S. run on most of these things. They're selling down in the States at a much cheaper price at the tail-end of their run, and ours is just coming on. Technically it's not dumping. That's why we have seasonal tariffs — to avoid these things,

Anyway, you'd be interested in the Minister of Economic Development's answer: "Any enhancement of those that are established or accepted now that are grandfathered would not be available after a free trade agreement." Here's the minister in charge.... In other words, if you make things better, if you make them richer, if you do anything like that.... In the fish case on the east coast they argued that unemployment insurance was a subsidy; that's what can happen.

Now I want to go a little bit into the jurisdictional aspects of it, because certain provinces are really concerned about this: Prince Edward Island is concerned about its sovereignty; Quebec is making some signs now. I know Bourassa goes "Rah, rah, rah!" every time you hear about this free trade deal with Reagan and Mulroney, but other people are beginning to be concerned too. Don Getty is getting concerned because of incursions into what may be regarded as provincial rights or sovereignty, and there are probably others — notably Peterson — who are concerned.

I'd like to just read a few quotes from an article by a Saskatchewan university professor by the name of John Conway. Some of us in this party might remember John Conway.

MR. STUPICH: He was a leadership candidate in 1968.

MR. ROSE: He was a leadership candidate one time, yes. Anyway, I guess he's been doing good work at the University of Saskatchewan for some time now, and he has this to say about the free trade agreement. There are two or three quotes from this article in the Globe. I won't belabour it too much, I hope:

"Even a Few Provinces Might be Able to Sink Free Trade.

"If the free trade agreement were only about trade and tariffs, Ottawa's case would be ironclad" — because it has a right to make treaties affecting export.

"However, the agreement is much more than that. In fact, it strives to reshape the entire national economy, including key areas under provincial jurisdiction."

I think it's trying to turn us into an American model, an echo of the market economy of the United States. I don't agree with that; it would perhaps be quite agreeable to many members on the other side.

[4:45]

He says that section 95 of the constitution "gives the provinces and Ottawa joint authority over agriculture. The area is very complex, but the free trade agreement has opened all aspects of agricultural policy...." That's part of the quote. I can read it in case you think I've taken it out of context: "The federal case is stronger here, since provincial agriculture measures are allowed only if they 'are not repugnant to any act of the Parliament of Canada."'

There's another key quote that I think is important: "Mr. Crosbie's belief that all these potential federal intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction can be justified simply in terms of the federal power over trade and commerce is a constitutional fantasy." There could be a lot of challenges yet.

He closes by saying, among other things, what Ottawa might do: "Ottawa could declare that any particular provincial 'work' — oil wells, marketing boards or whatever — were to the general advantage of Canada and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction." The feds could march in here and have a lot to say about the way we operate our marketing boards. They already have a tripartite share in the national marketing schemes through an act that went through — I don't know; I was there, but I think it was around 1970. Potentially, that is a major concern about the intrusions, not of U.S. power into our sovereignty — not an incursion there — but the federals into the provincial jurisdiction. You know how sensitive our Premier is about that. He wants them to send more money, and I don't blame him for that. That's fair enough, but I think that he hasn't been quite successful enough in getting it.

I have some specific questions, now that I have set that up. A recent brief by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to the members of the government caucus — you'll note I said "members of the government caucus" only — asks for an inventory of agriculture's winners and losers under the Mulroney-Vander Zalm trade deal. Grapes, horticulture, soft fruits and vegetables should be on that list; those are the losers. I would like to know what steps the minister has taken to establish a comprehensive program to provide incomes and alternatives to farmers who were adversely affected. Where is the program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the question about grapes you asked the other day: as you know, I will not release the details other than to say that the policy issue relative to the 1988 production of grapes has been guaranteed at 1987 prices. I am not at liberty to discuss the actual dollar details of the federal

[ Page 4874 ]

government agreement on grapes. The adjustment programs that may well be necessary with regard to the MFN agreement.... The 20-year snap-back proviso where you take the low and the high year out is another issue that with have to be worked out.

You also have to understand, hon. member, that we have some grape producers — some of the vineyards and the estate wineries especially — who are saying they welcome the competition. They like to see it, so they obviously feel they have a market niche that they can compete with. They may have a premium product that they feel they can market right in the California market, for a good example — as one of them said.

I believe that we have to design programs relative to the MFN when it comes in on January 1, 1989; we will look at what adjustments are necessary. I've been talking to the processors, who will also have to make some adjustments. It impacts not only on the producer, but also on the processing sector.

MR. ROSE: I'll get to the wine people and the processors a little later on, but I did want to ask you.... I don't see any budget allocation in the Agriculture estimates for the B.C. share. Presumably, since B.C. is a conspirator with the feds, they certainly should pay the price for their sins. Where is the budget item for these programs? I would like to know a little more about what we are talking about now. Is there any commitment from either the Premier or the Treasury Board? Has there been a study that you could tell us about, even if you can't give the dollar amounts? Can you tell us when it is going to be announced? Every time I hear about it, it is two weeks from now.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I just said that the policy issues that were discussed are basically in labour and consumer affairs relative to pricing policy for wines and a guaranteed price for those grapes. The issue of the federal government making a compensation program or a replant program — I cannot tell you the details of that. I know that discussions were taking place yesterday and will be taking place again tomorrow. That's as much as I am at liberty to say at this stage.

MR. ROSE: I would like to know if any legislative measures are anticipated. The rule of anticipation here is that you can't ask a government member what is likely to happen, or what is going to happen. By the way, I wasn't interested in just the wine deal. The other losers are obviously going to be some people in the soft-fruit industry. The losers are going to be in the vegetable and horticulture industry generally — if you listen to them.

Here is the Alberta 1988 Free Trade Transition Commission Act. They've got an act to take care of people in the transition. A lot of it is definitions, but this is what the commission shall do: "...study the anticipated effects of free trade on industry in Alberta" — presumably to include agriculture; "study the anticipated impact of free trade on Alberta labour" — quite a big farm labour bill in this province, I would think; I've got the figures, but I don't need them; "submit recommendations to the minister for programs which will provide the necessary assistance during the transition phase to both industry and labour sections of the economy that may be adversely affected by free trade."

I have never heard about any winners in this, but presumably there must be some, or else we wouldn't be plunging headlong into it. But finally, here, I think, is an important one: "...submit recommendations to the minister for programs to provide retraining and employment search assistance" — search assistance! — "to those who lose their jobs as a result of the free trade agreement." That's how optimistic they are in Alberta, but at least they're careful. They're going to look into it; they've got a commission set up. They've established it, and their House has concerned itself with it. We haven't done that here. Unless it's come up from the opposition, free trade has never been brought up here. There's no resolution on it. There was one last year — number 68, I think it was, and I put on just the reverse in number 69.

Can the minister enlighten us to any extent on how things are proceeding? Has he got any figures? What's the impact in dollars on grape growers, on the horticultural sector, the vegetable growers, the soft fruit, processing? McCain's boss down in New Brunswick says that we're going to lose 100,000 jobs. You can say that it's a big subsidized industry. You just gave a loan guarantee to Summerland for a processor, yet the vegetable people tell us that six processing plants are likely to close. So I don't think we're disloyal when we bring these things up. I think we need to know where we're going, and we have to be assured that the government in power is enlightened about these things, or has taken the trouble to enlighten itself.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We obviously are concerned. As the hon. member knows, we would not be politically astute if we did not show that concern. But I can tell you that through the Ministry of Economic Development and discussions within the Canadian Horticultural Council of the country, the vegetable and soft fruit was the major part of the issues being discussed. The impact, as you say, could be fairly severe. But there are also discussions going on about what adjustments are possible to be competitive in the free trade global market between Canada and the United States. There may be opportunities for our processors or our producers. In fact, I can tell you, a number of the commodities we produce at the farmgate level are just as cheap — and in some cases cheaper — than our counterparts to the south of us.

So the processing companies realize that they may have to become a little more efficient. We may have to become more efficient as producers. I believe that the adjustment factors that may well be necessary are those being discussed not only among our Economic Development ministry with the federal government on the free trade issue but also by the Canadian Horticultural Council as they relate to what measures will have to be put in place.

I commented a little earlier about the six processors that you say might well be gone. I don't believe that's necessarily so. It's possible they may be gone, but I believe they will rally to make the adjustments necessary to be competitive. If in that 20-year snap-back proviso — that's 20 years down the road.... Who knows, if free trade isn't so great for Canada, there's always a six-month period where you can withdraw. But I believe that realistically, Canadians can be just as efficient agriculturally as our neighbours to the south.

The only issue you talked about in the 36 out of the 52 weeks was the fact of whether we have the climatic conditions to grow as many crops as they do in the United States.

MR. ROSE: The minister's comment about the 20-year snap-back provision is a little bit like a guy saying when he

[ Page 4875 ]

gets married that if he doesn't like it 20 years from now, he can always get out of it — or, as a matter of fact, get out of it in six months. It's not quite as easy in marriage as perhaps it is on the other, but.... If we're so competitive, why is it we don't have any processors, really, in this country anymore? I can recall when we had lots of processors. We've been bought out right, left and centre by foreign firms, mainly American firms.

But you go and look on your grocery shelves any time you like. What kind of brands are you going to see? Well, maybe you might see Royal City; you might. But you'll probably see Stokely-Van Camp, Jolly Green Giant, Del Monte. This is how competitive we are. They're all taking the place of brand names that we used to have that are now gone.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Here's the Vegetable Marketing Commission. He says here: "It is clear that if the B.C.-produced raw products are expected to absorb the current value of duty to the marketable crop, then the opportunity for continued production does not exist." What they're saying is that if you take away that duty that you've got now over the seasonal tariffs, then there's no place for the processor. He can't compete with what's coming in. That's what they say.

He says: "We know who the losers will be in the proposed trade agreement, but who the winners will be...has not as yet been identified." Then they finally ask a very good question, which I will ask the minister: "Can a sound business plan for the predictable future be built around this trade agreement for any major industry in Canada that could not have been done prior to this agreement? If the answer is no in a majority of cases, then the agreement is flawed beyond repair." That's how optimistic these people are. You know them all. You've worked with them; they are friends of yours.

That's for processed products. What about the fresh? The wholesale value of these crops runs between $36 million and $40 million a year." There is no period during our growing and marketing season...that the market is not dominated and totally influenced by the landed price of U.S. products." Now the U.S.A. enjoys a totally unrestricted access for our market for 36 weeks of the year on many products. What's the significance of an extension of another 16 weeks? Why do they need it? They don't need it. They'll put us out of business, according to these people — the Vegetable Marketing Commission.

[5:00]

"To allow these farms to go out of existence and have some of the finest peat, mineral and clay soils in Canada paved over will be a consequence for which we will all have to answer to our children and grandchildren in the years to come." I can go through and name all the figures in here. It would only bore you and everybody else who's listening, if they're not bored enough already. The point is that a lot of people are very concerned about this thing. We don't have the protection, and they don't see their future.

As soon as they go out of business, if they live in the lower mainland.... If I were living in the lower mainland and was put out of business because of this kind of stuff, because I had no more protection, I would want to sell my land for subdivision. That's what I would want to do. Right now, we import a billion dollars' worth of produce from the States each year — food. Our climate is not going to change. It doesn't matter how innovative our people are. Sure, we'll have a hunk of their market. I am quite sure there will be things come out that will allow us to have a hunk of their market. But if we allow unrestricted access of raw products, such as chicken for chicken pies, where do you think they will come from? Not the marketing boards, because we've no protection against that now. It's gone,

I want to talk to you a little about wine, because that's always a big issue. I just want to let the House know, because I want to put it on the record. We sold them out, and we are told under GATT that we're at fault as well. Here's a list of support programs that the EEC has for such things as wine. They're not going to treat us equally, although half the space on Canadian shelves is devoted to EEC wine.

Subsidy programs under the guidance section of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund are: (a) market structure projects — 25 percent of the cost of investment which improves the processing and marketing structures, with member states contributing 5 percent, cost $45 million a year; (b) regional subsidies for less-favoured areas — and they are mentioned here, but they are parts of France I can't pronounce; Charente's program was supposed to be phased out by '81 but payments are still being made as late as '85, the last year available — cost about $17.6 million annually; (c) market-related measures, vineyard conversion, abandonment and restructuring.... Vineyard conversion provides payment to growers who commit not to replant for a six-year period. That might be worthwhile considering if you're going to put them out of business. Vineyard abandonment provides for payments to growers who agree not to replant for eight years. Vineyard restructuring provides payments to grape growers on a per-hectare basis for restructuring their vineyards. Mountain and hill farming provides special compensation for farmers operating in areas of difficult topography. Payments of this program increased 14 percent in '85 and by a massive 42 percent in '87, but the amount paid is not immediately available. Grants for capital structures paid about $17.7 million a year from '64 to '83 for planting vineyards.

Here are some other subsidy programs for grapes. Support for grapes must use three programs introduced in '84 to discourage production of low-quality wine must by subsidizing its use for other purposes. Enrichment aid — producers receive payment for using concentrated grape rather than sugar to boost alcoholic strength of their wines. Payments to encourage the use of grape must in production of grape juice. Payments to encourage the use of grape must in the production of light products. Campaigns to promote grape juice consumption established in '84 cost $5.7 million a year for advertising of grape juice. Payments to encourage the use of alcohol distilled from wine as fuel in petrol additives costs $64 million annually. EEC's disposing of the growing amount of alcohol distilled from wine, by auctioning his product at a loss as a fuel for power stations and gasoline additives....

How can our people compete against something like that? It's virtually impossible for them to do it. Why are we worried about GATT when they're doing things like this? I think we've taken a weak-kneed approach to this sort of thing, and I don't think our governments have been strong enough. I'm not just talking about the provincial government; I'm talking about the federal government. What are they complaining about? Do they want all the shelf space? Our wine is declining. Canadian wine consumption has

[ Page 4876 ]

declined by 14 percent over the last.... I've forgotten the time, but I've got it here somewhere. Anyway, that's the situation.

As far as our own wine growers are concerned, I'd like to know more about what's going to be done about them. I don't think we can do anything but read more of this stuff into the record about how many people are affected. There are $70 million in investments. Is that going to be part of your adjustment package? There are 6,000 part-time and full-time jobs, $2.5 billion in the Okanagan in activity. That's all gone. Well, it's not all gone; there may be some estate wineries that will survive, but that's about it.

I don't know whether the minister wants to respond. During my little exposition there I didn't give any direct questions, but I'd like to know from him how he regards this, and with his usual optimism I'm sure he'll be able to enlighten the House about what we're going to do about this.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member opposite mentioned a number of programs that are presently being carried out in the European Economic Community, and I fully concur with what he says. We're well aware that those programs are being undertaken, and I share his concern that the federal government should respond and be able to launch a counteraction against the charges the GATT have brought on Canada relative to our unfair pricing practices, or whatever they may wish to call them in their actions. I certainly concur with you that there are a number of programs in Europe.... It wasn't more than two or three years back that you could land a gallon of wine in Montreal at about 49 cents a gallon. You know darned well that the shipping costs can't be far off that, so judging from that number you know that a number of subsidy programs have been used to get the product to that landing point or f.o.b. point. I concur with what you're saying. I have said on many occasions that the federal government has to be more present in these areas to counter those actions that are sought out by the EEC or our trading partners wherever they may be. We must be more proactive in these things and not be defensive. I think we have to be upfront and more proactive, and I have said that on many occasions in Ottawa.

On the B.C. situation you said: "What are we going to do?" I would like to tell you about what is planned from the federal point of view, but I have said I will not say what dollars are involved relative to adjustment factors for our own grape producers. But I know darned well it will be there, because there has to be an opportunity, not only from the estate wineries or the existing commercial wineries, for them to be competitive, and the way to be competitive is to find a market niche. If the estate wineries decide, in their wisdom, that there's an opportunity under the 30,000 gallon limit for domestic consumption, there may be an opportunity for them to take the product out of a cooperative operation and market it for export purposes where they will capitalize on the same market niche they had for the domestic market.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry the minister can't tell us what we're going to do for these adjustment.... Wine is only one, and we haven't even come to that yet, but there are going to be a number of others, as the minister knows.

B.C. could adopt a promotion package for B.C. wine, but, again, that's government-assisted marketing and that's contrary to the free trade agreement. I think we're screwed. I think we're in the corner on this stuff.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure what the minister said. I heard "I think there's a lot" and then I heard "free trade." I'll sit down so he can repeat it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to tell the hon. member that we believe there are a number of things in the way things are promoted and marketed that we can do within the free trade agreement that are consistent within GATT.

MR. ROSE: Tell us.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, on the issue of whether they could have a roadside stand similar to the product they produce for vegetables or fruits, we feel they can market wines right off their own operations.

MR. WILLIAMS: Roadside stands. What an answer.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Similar to.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister knows that that might be a stop-gap answer, but the Attorney-General (Hon. B. Smith) might have something to say about that. The minister knows there is a phase-in period. This thing is only seven years, and that's hardly enough. I don't think you can market the amount that we have been developing through roadside stands.

I'm going to leave that matter now. There are enough problems in agriculture as far as GATT and free trade are concerned without going....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My hon. colleague behind me wants me to wax eloquent and spill vitriol and oceans of contempt on the minister for his puny response to my question. Whatever he decided to do to help marketing would probably be contrary to free trade anyway.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this for the moment and allow my colleague.... The former Minister of Agriculture has a lot....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: He was going to talk about bees.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure my colleague from Nanaimo has much more to offer, but it wouldn't take much to do better than the minister. His answer to the GATT problem and the bilateral trade deal is a roadside stand.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: One, Mr. Minister, or could you have them all over the place — or just outside the winery, or just by the vineyard, or what? A classic roadside stand like you see in Keremeos when you come into town: "Get your booze here. Last stop before you hit the mountains." Come on!

So the answer for all of these estate wineries of the Okanagan, which are really quite exciting.... I have to admit that I've been very impressed by what's happened in

[ Page 4877 ]

the Okanagan Valley. I hope the local media — are you out there listening? — in Summerland, Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Cawston, Nighthawk, Keremeos, Rock Creek, Christian Valley, Westbridge, Greenwood, Phoenix, Grand Forks.... I hope all of those folks are listening in Boundary-Similkameen....

MR. GABELMANN: Beaverdell.

MR. WILLIAMS: Beaverdell, Carmi — yes indeed. I hope all of those people are listening in terms of the minister's answer with respect to what the trade deal will do to the wine industry. His answer is get a couple of 2-by-4s and put up a roadside stand. That's very impressive for an estate winery: "Gray Monk Roadside Stand." Come on, you've got to do better than that.

As the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said, you're getting trapped by the deal. You won't be able to do a lot of the things you would want to do in terms of promoting and discriminating to some extent — which is reasonable, I think most Canadians would feel — because of the legislation. Please, dig a little deeper into your sack and come up with something better than a roadside stand.

[5:15]

MR. ROSE: I wanted to ask the minister whether he's still using ARDSA funds for the expansion of vineyards. The last news release I saw was on June 16, 1987. There was a grant, fifty-fifty funding for some $60,000. The thing is titled: "ARDSA Funds Vineyard Expansion Project." I just wonder why we would be funding the expansion of vineyards in June 1987, in view of the fact that wine has always been number one on the hit list?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't have the details of that particular one with me, but staff will find it for me, and I can provide the answer at a later date.

MR. ROSE: The minister will agree now, won't he, that this sounds kind of silly. Maybe they're going to be pumped, and they can use the water for something else. "Inkameep Vineyards will be able to bring currently unproductive land into production due to an irrigation project that has received $60,023 funding assistance" $30,000 each, which seems a little silly to me.

I don't know if the minister has his officials. I said the fish stuff was pretty well over last Thursday afternoon, but until the former Minister of Agriculture gets back here with all his beehive stuff, I wonder if we could return to the fisheries for a moment and take the questions on notice if it's something you don't have the staff here for.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to canvass some ground that has been touched on. I was distracted momentarily reading the new biography of the member for Nanaimo, which is quite a complete document.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). But we don't have time to talk about that now.

I wanted to talk about two things, first of all, with respect to aquaculture and the problem of the foreign control of that industry and the capital that's coming from offshore. I'd like the minister to advise the House whether or not he shares the concern about this industry being controlled to such an extent from offshore; what he sees as an acceptable limit to that investment; and, if the initiatives in terms of changes to the Bank Act don't produce more Canadian control, what further measures might be taken to achieve that end.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Relative to the question on section 178 of the Bank Act, or the amendments that are necessary, whether they actually come forward within this present sitting of the Commons — hopefully they will — that will allow for the stock within those pens to be used as collateral on securing a bank loan.... That is the basic issue. A number of those who have asked for funding or support from our local banks have been turned down and have gone to business people or the banking community in Norway to seek that funding. I believe that once the amendments necessary to section 178 are put in place, to take as security the fish within those pens, then you'll see a greater influx of Canadian investment in those operations.

As to whether a regulation is deemed necessary, we don't see it as a necessity at this point, hon. member, but we're monitoring it fairly closely. If there is something that has to be done, we want to be well aware of how much investment's involved, at the same time asking the federal government to get on with the job of putting the amendment in place.

MR. MILLER: Without being very specific, I gather from what the minister has said that it is a matter of concern and that he views the changes to the Bank Act as being a remedy that would allow more Canadian capital to be invested in aquaculture; and if that does not produce that result, then it's something the minister would continue to be concerned about and would perhaps seek other measures to address. I thank the minister for that.

Still with aquaculture, I sat in on Mr. Gillespie's hearing in Prince Rupert. When was that? Quite a while ago; perhaps November. It seemed apparent to me that there was a problem in the south, with the clashes, if you like, between some of the recreational properties and the massive growth of the aquaculture industry on the southern coast of British Columbia. It also struck me that the opportunities in the north were something that should be explored, not only from the point of view that there would be less clash, or less impact, between various users, but that the north is a good location in terms of the quality of water and the tidal action and all the rest; but thirdly, and perhaps more importantly — I didn't say impotently — I'm not accusing the minister of being impotent, or a potentate — is that aquaculture could be used as an economic development initiative. Unlike a lot of industries, it does not require a significant infrastructure. There has been a continuing problem in some of the native communities on the coast trying to develop economic initiatives that will provide employment. I know that some of the bands have indeed moved into aquaculture. I think it is growing.

I wonder if the minister could comment about that, in terms of a deliberate policy of the government to encourage that kind of thing. It would seem to me to achieve two ends: the continued development of this industry, and the promotion of economic development in areas that really don't have too many other opportunities to avail themselves of any kind of development. Is the minister prepared to see that as a conscious policy of the government. in terms of promoting a particular area?

[ Page 4878 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As you're well aware, Mr. Chairman, and as the member very ably points out, the Gillespie report recognized that there is an opportunity for the Indian community to become involved in aquaculture operations up and down the coast, wherever their bands may be, and laid out some fairly significant guidelines, if they wish to undertake that sort of operation. Our ministry is more than willing to work along with the federal government and the native bands in development of policy that they may wish to undertake, relative to that particular sector of the industry. So I would say yes, we're quite interested to do what we can to have the natives be part and parcel of the aquaculture industry.

MR. MILLER: Turning to the issue of GATT and the replacement measures that are being proposed.... First of all, I attended a speech by a proponent of free trade in Vancouver. Mr. Lougheed spoke there about a month and a half ago. If I were an Albertan, I would have mixed feelings. But I'm not talking as an Albertan; I'm talking as a British Columbian concerned about the fishing industry.

One of the things he talked about.... It struck me as well, because I was involved in this GATT ruling and the meetings leading up to it, and I know, along with a lot of other Canadians or British Columbians involved in the industry, that quite often we sat down scratching our heads and could not figure out for the life of us why there was a complaint with a monetary value — depending on who you were talking to — that surely did not exceed at least $10 million. By some people's account, the monetary value of the complaint — Canadians buying unprocessed American fish — was so insignificant in terms of the whole area of trade between our two countries. Yet it was obvious that Washington was feeling very strongly about this. I still, to this day, have not really got an explanation about why they were feeling so strongly. I have my suspicions; I think it's tied in with free trade. But in the course of going through that process and then listening to Mr. Lougheed speak.... He spoke fairly strongly about what he viewed as the ineffectualness of the Canadian delegates to GATT, and offered the view that Canada simply did not take forceful positions at the GATT panels and therefore were the losers as a result of it.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity — given his position and the importance of this industry — to offer his own views about the Canadian government's effectiveness in dealing with these issues at GATT. I raised this back in July 1987 with the minister. I met with your deputy in March 1987 and talked about the fact that this unfair trade complaint had gone to GATT. I asked the minister in the House to make sure that we had a person back there, that we didn't send our information by way of paper or a telephone call, and that we actually had somebody on the ground. Can the minister quickly run through that, in terms of how effective or ineffective GATT may be and whether there's a need to really do some more work on our effectiveness on that international panel?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the point you raised about the value of the raw fish that we're talking about as opposed to the agreement we're faced with, I don't believe it was even $10 million. I think it was substantially less than that. We're talking about the amount of fish coming out of what you would call Alaskan waters, I presume, and what was landed and processed in our west coast processing plants, the majority of which would be up in your constituency, I believe. The number of opportunities I've had to discuss it with federal Fisheries officials and the minister himself.... I even raised the issue yesterday when I was with the minister in Delta on the occasion of Fraser River Estuary Day. We talked a lot about salmon and other species that use the estuary. I cannot give you any of the details of our discussion, but I reiterated again and again how important it is that we're not sold down the river — no pun intended. It's important that....

MR. LOVICK: The joke is no longer current.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Nothing flowing out to sea, right?

Anyhow, the issue really is to make sure that we have an opportunity to have a conservation landing requirement. I believe that is the important issue. Beyond that it may well involve other operations within processing plants.

In discussions with the raw fish agreement.... I think the Alaskan situation prompted the action, as near as we can tell from all of the discussions that I've had with Fisheries and Oceans, and the response given was to have some access to the raw fish from the U.S. side in the Strait of Georgia or the west coast Island fishery where they can come in and take raw fish out. They have been doing that for some in the past. It has been going on quite extensively.

I believe the requirement for landing for conservation purposes is an important one, and I keep stressing to the minister how important it is that we have that in place.

MR. MILLER: I think it's an essential question, and it's something that could be talked about; it is fairly general. If the people who represent Canada's interests at GATT panels, or whatever the forum might be, are not doing it effectively.... Sometimes you can win or lose an argument there, obviously, and this is a serious one. For example, I don't know whether any effort was made. I was informed that subsequent to the initial ruling by the GATT panel, phone calls were starting to be placed about the level of native involvement in the fishery. Clearly, under GATT a country can't argue the maintenance of a policy that might otherwise be viewed as an unfair trade practice on the basis that indigenous people are significant beneficiaries of that.

It was quite surprising to me to learn that those kinds of phone calls were being put only after the issue had been already dealt with. That demonstrates to me that we've got some mandarins somewhere who might be a little divorced from reality when it comes to understanding the basic nature of a particular industry, whether it's fishing, fish processing or even the wine industry. I think that's a serious question that needs to be addressed in terms of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the people who are actually out there protecting jobs.

[5:30]

I made that point in terms of native involvement. I don't know if the minister is aware that that issue was dealt with. But secondly, it would seem to me that in order to be consistent we would have to make the landing requirement applicable to all species. I'm wondering if that is the minister's understanding. I will leave it at that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not convinced that it's going to be all species. I hope it can be all species. That's what we're working towards.

[ Page 4879 ]

Your comment about saving jobs: as I said to the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), that is not GATT-consistent. You cannot use that term. It's not a thing that is GATT consistent, to protect a job. You're talking about a resource. That's the issue we're dealing with.

I tend to agree with you on the issue of whether our particular negotiators or senior levels in the federal government did do all the homework necessary before we got into the GATT agreement itself.

MR. MILLER: My information, Mr. Minister — you're saying I'm wrong — is that the country can argue jobs if they argue it in the context of indigenous people; that there are opportunities under GATT to make those kinds of arguments. That's the information I've been given. Is the minister saying that's not the case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm talking about the whole fishery.

MR. MILLER: I'm talking about native involvement in the fishery in British Columbia, which is significant and perhaps might grow, depending on what arrangements flow out of agreements with the federal government. I use that to illustrate the point that Canadian negotiators, the Canadian delegates, did not use an argument that was available to them. Is it because they didn't know about it or what? That's a serious one. I will leave it at that, then, rather than take up the time of other members.

MR. STUPICH: I want to speak in general first. I'd like to get some idea from the minister as to how he feels about the programs that were introduced by the NDP administration. These programs were introduced after full consultation with the Federation of Agriculture and various commodity groups. I mention in particular the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. I know it's been done away with. Does the minister really believe that it was not performing a useful function? He's a former president of the Federation of Agriculture and he worked with the government of the day, not in that capacity but with that legislation.

The Agricultural Credit Act is another one that's been done away with. Does the minister believe that there's no need in the province for credit assistance to farmers? There is in other provinces, but not in B.C. How does he feel about the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the land that's coming out regularly. I haven't heard of a cabinet appeal being turned down. There may have been some, but if people get the ear of a cabinet minister and go to cabinet, to my knowledge they succeed.

How does the minister feel about the farm income assurance program? I know how he felt about it when he was president of the Federation of Agriculture. How does he feel today about the way in which it is being scaled down?

I'd like to ask the minister how many members he had on his staff when he assumed office in October 1986, how many he has today and how many he expects to have at the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1989.

In his opening remarks, the minister said that there was a marginal or nominal — I'm not sure which word he used — reduction in the spending estimates. It was relatively small, in any case. There are two ministries that have a little larger reduction in terms of percentages than has Agriculture. One of them is Tourism, and a lot has been said about that already, where there was a 9 percent reduction in the vote; and the other one. the ministry that's used for political purposes more than any other ministry, is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, where the major job on the Coquihalla is finished, so there is a reduction in that ministry of 16 percent. Agriculture is third with an 8 percent reduction in estimates. It's right up there in the top.

What about the performance? At March 31, 1987, in that particular year. it was the highest appropriation ever in British Columbia for the Ministry of Agriculture — $116.5 million. But that was an election year, and it was intended to look ~good to the farmers. to make them think that the government was really going to do something for agriculture, for the farmers. How much did they spend? They spent $69.2 million — 59 percent of the amount estimated.

I know there can be fluctuations. In 1988, the amount estimated was reduced — working it down — by 14 percent. It was a substantially larger reduction, proportionately, than any other ministry in government. How much did they spend? They spent S79 million — 79 percent of that reduced amount. Where is the performance, Mr. Chairman? In 1989, the estimates are $91.2 million — down another 8 percent. It's been steadily going down since this member became Minister of Agriculture. The amount being spent each year is always low — lower than any other ministry, with the exception this year, as I said, of Tourism and Transportation.

This minister assumed office with a lot of expectation in the minds of the farmers in the province. After all, it was one of their own, a former president of the Federation of Agriculture, who was made Minister of Agriculture. They were confident that this member would be able to do a lot for them as Minister of Agriculture, or would at least fight for them.

Well, I think the minister has several alternatives. He can carry on as he is and pretend to be the Minister of Agriculture, letting the Premier make the decisions. Let the Premier make the announcements and let him be surprised, along with the others, when he hears these announcements. He could resign in frustration — and that would tell the farmers something about what the Socreds are doing to farmers in the province. He could fight — and if necessary, you fight openly and publicly for the farmers and wait to be fired.

I don’t think the minister is going to do any of those. I think he'll simply sit there and pretend to be the Minister of Agriculture and eventually, at this rate, will become the second Minister of Agriculture in the history of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to have a want of confidence in him moved at a convention. This happened already to one Socred, and the way it's going, I'm afraid it's going to happen to another, because all the programs upon which they depended so much and that they helped develop are simply withering away under this administration. Under the Bill Bennett administration they certainly did, and the process is continuing.

I have to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries if, as a farmer, a former very active member and former president of the federation. he feels that the programs introduced in consultation with the federation should now be done away with, since they are no longer needed in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The hon. former Minister of Agriculture certainly raises some points that need some clarification. He makes a number of points relative to the programs that he assumes are eroded. They may well have

[ Page 4880 ]

been withdrawn. We're in consultation with the Federation of Agriculture. In fact, one of the programs — partial interest reimbursement — was discussed while I was the president, and it was agreed to by the farmers and the government.

It was not a case of unilateral action that you might be implying took place. It was not; it was a consultation between the government and the farmers, because I was president at the time that consultation was undertaken. Not all the programs were automatically abandoned. Discussion did take place with the different farm organizations.

You talked about the budgets being down substantially. It's obviously because farm incomes — contrary to what you might say — have gone up in a lot of cases. For the last three or four years now, we've been at over a billion dollars at the farm gate level. Farm incomes have gone up, although net incomes vary somewhat substantially. Net income looks to be up substantially this year over last year.

You mentioned the number of employees that we will be going down to. If I'm not mistaken — maybe my staff could tell me — I think 429 is what our staff complement will be at the end of this year. Is that correct? I'm pretty sure that's the number.

MR. STUPICH: When?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, not today — at the end of the year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'll let my staff hand me that in a minute. I'm not positive of the exact number today.

On the issue of how many programs we have to have in place, because a program is automatically in place, that does not necessarily mean it's effective. I think we have to assess programs on the basis of need. I can tell you this much.... My hon. critic mentioned the 2 cents a pound for the Red Delicious apple or the feed grain market and development program. Those programs were adjusted on the basis of need and put in place not because they're perennially there. I don't believe that's necessarily the entire answer to adjusting farm income problems or operations problems within agriculture itself. We have to be able to adjust to the difficulties the farming community faces, and make the adjustments when they are necessary.

MR. STUPICH: The other two questions about staff were: how many are serving today, and how many were serving the day the minister assumed office?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, if we can't get this today, perhaps we can get the answer to the hon. member tomorrow sometime.

MR. STUPICH: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I just didn't want the questions missed. I'll be here tomorrow and maybe the day after that as well.

It's obvious that the minister is determined to carry on; I was reasonably sure he would. It reminds me, I suppose, of Churchill saying that he wasn't elected as Prime Minister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. I suspect that this particular Minister of Agriculture may well have been appointed to serve during the dissolution of the Ministry of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see it disappear totally while this minister is still Minister of Agriculture.

MR. ROSE: By 1992, if the trend continues.

MR. STUPICH: I'm being fed a line here that if the current trend continues, by 1992 there will be the minister and his secretary, and that's about it.

The minister said that he was there as president when they were discussing doing away with the Agricultural Credit Act. Not doing away with it; that wasn't the discussion at the conventions....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Interest reimbursement program, the Agricultural Credit Act. It wasn't to do away with it; that was not the discussion that I heard at the conventions that I attended and that the minister, then president, attended. It was a gradual eroding of the program, where the government came to the federation and told them each year that it was going to be cut back, so that it was no longer of any use, because you could get as good credit anywhere else. And it wasn't a matter of discussing it with them and agreeing. Sure, it was agreeing, after they said: "Look, this is the best you're going to get. Take it or leave it." They took it as long as there was anything there to take, and when there was nothing left to take, then the program was done away with. It was not the kind of friendly discussion and negotiating that the minister implied in his response to what I said, Mr. Chairman. But as I say, he's determined to carry on, so I won't bother with that anymore.

I want to talk about another issue, quite seriously. This is about honey-bees.

There was a story in the local Free Press, I guess it was, in Nanaimo on March 12, 1987, about the Island being sealed off. The Island is far enough away from the mainland that the hope was that it could become a breeding-stock district for the North American continent, one that could be free of some diseases that are on the mainland — a couple of mites, and I don't recall the exact name of them....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No. If I heard what you said, I would repeat it.

There were two of them anyway, two mites; and also the European foulbrood does not occur on Vancouver Island yet, or at least didn't until fairly recently.

[5:45]

It's a great proposal, because it's the one area where we can produce packaged bees for distribution anywhere in North America, and even outside of North America, if the markets were there. It's been said that it could very soon become a million dollar industry; I know there's one prediction that it could become a $10 million industry. We could be a unique area in this part of the world for supplying these packaged bees. It could be an extremely important industry in British Columbia, located on Vancouver Island. Certainly we need something a little different on Vancouver Island.

It depends upon closing the Island, and that's what the story in the paper said, that the Island would be closed to the import of bees except from New Zealand and perhaps from parts of Australia. That means not letting bees in from

[ Page 4881 ]

anywhere in British Columbia. Here is a story that 300 hives of bees were imported to Vancouver Island. The department reacted in the way they should. They wrote a letter to the apiary, to Mr. J.P. Wagner, Jae's Honey Ltd., at Lantzville:

"This letter is in response to the information obtained April 25 that you have contravened the Bee Act regulation which established Vancouver Island and adjacent islands as a breeding stock district. The regulation provides that no person shall bring bees into the regulated district after January 29, 1987, the date the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries signed the order" — that would be the current minister. "Excepted are complete shipments of bees arriving straight from New Zealand and Australia.

"From our telephone conversation on April 25, I understand you have purchased approximately 300 hives of bees. The vendor operates commercial apiaries at Fort St. John, B.C. However, you seemingly didn't ask where the hives came from."

The point I wanted to make there, Mr. Chairman, is that this was established in a telephone conversation with this Mr. Wagner. He agreed that he had purchased 300 hives of bees from this apiary located in Fort St. John.

"I'm certain you have been aware for over 12 months that Vancouver Island is part of the regulated breed stock district. It is inconceivable, therefore, that you wouldn't be concerned that the hives purchased were being moved from the mainland of British Columbia to Vancouver Island. As of April 25, you stated you now know the hives in question came from the British Columbia mainland."

No argument. The purchaser admitted that they came from the mainland. He knew they came from the mainland. He knew who they came from and he knew there were 300. This is April 26, 1988.

"The regulated district has been established by the minister at the insistence of the beekeeping industry on Vancouver Island and is supported by the British Columbia Honey Producers' Association. It is established for the protection of the growing package bee and queen industry on the Island and to provide a sanctuary area which would be free of mite pests and Africanized bees in future, thereby providing 'clean' bees and breeding stock to other parts of Canada."

It could well have said the North American continent.

"The regulated district is supported by beekeepers' associations in other provinces. The regulated district was established with the understanding that it be self-regulating, which means the responsibility is placed on Island beekeepers to refrain from importing illegal bees. The industry is expected to report suspected or known contraventions. Vancouver Island beekeepers will be extremely displeased over this importation of bees.

"You have committed a serious offence by contravening the regulation establishing a breeding stock district. Therefore I hereby order you: (1) to register all apiary sites temporarily by completing application forms provided; (2) to not move said hives from their present sites until they are removed from the regulated district; (3) to obtain an inspection of said hives before removing from the regulated district; (4) to obtain from an inspector a permit to remove each apiary from the district; (5) to completely remove all imported beehives from Vancouver Island to the mainland of B.C. by May 6 or at a later date authorized by an inspector. An inspector will monitor the moving process."

All of this is in line with the established procedures, and I compliment the ministry for acting as promptly, directly and forthrightly as we would expect them to do.

"Failure to comply with these orders will result in action on the government's part, as is set out in the Bee Act and other acts such as the Offence Act.

"Your request for certification to sell package bees is denied. First of all, the bees are on Vancouver Island illegally; secondly' they have not been sampled and examined for tracheal and Varroa mites, which, under the circumstances, will not be conducted.

"I trust you will comply with the above orders.

Yours truly,
Doug McCutcheon
Supervisor, Apiculture program"

Mr. Chairman, the bees were not treated in the way they were instructed to be by this letter.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have sent a directive. I'm not sure if you have our directive to Mr. Fuhr of May 27, hon. member, but just to read the last sentence: "You are, accordingly, hereby ordered to remove that which you took into the aforementioned district from the said district on or before June 9, 1988" — which is this coming Thursday. We followed up on this as quickly as we could. and hopefully we will see those bee stocks moved off the Island.

I'd like to go back to one other thing that the hon. member mentioned about the Agricultural Credit Act not being in place. The ALDA program is part of the Agricultural Credit Act. I think you should understand that that's still in place. The ALDA program is there and operates within the confines of that act.

MR. STUPICH: First, with respect to the ALDA act, that's different legislation; it's a different program. There is credit legislation available, but it's not part of the farm credit legislation. The ALDA was the old land-clearing and drainage assistance act that was renamed by the NDP administration, I believe, and beefed up accordingly; but it was different legislation.

I was pleased to hear what you said about the bees. I didn't know about that. But it confuses me a little more, because there is a further letter from the same person in the ministry. May 4. 1988:

"Dear Mr. Wagner:

"It appears that the hives under consideration in my letter of April 26 all originated on Vancouver Island, by the purchasing of hives and splitting them three or four ways during the summer and fall. Queens were supplied by Babe's Honey."

There must have been some intervening stuff from that letter to the one that the minister is now talking about telling them that they have to remove them, and I'd like to know what the rest of the story is.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Perhaps I could read the letter. It's also from Mr. McCutcheon in our ministry. He's the inspector and supervisor of our apiary program:

"As you know, a breeding stock district was established by ministerial order in early 1987" —

[ Page 4882 ]

which you did refer to — "such district comprising, inter alia, Vancouver Island. Section 24(3) of the Bee Act prohibits the taking of bees, beehives and beekeeping equipment into the district except as authorized by and in compliance with a permit issued by an inspector. We have evidence that you took bees, beehives or beekeeping equipment into the breeding stock district in contravention of said section of the Bee Act."

The last sentence I've already read to you, where we are directing them to have them removed.

MR. STUPICH: I guess I want to be reassured that we're talking about the same hives. I know that the 300 in question came from Mr. Fuhr's apiary, and yet I have this letter of May 4, 1988. Does the minister have a copy of that one with him now? It would appear as though the ministry is backing down and saying: "Okay, we admit that you didn't bring them in. You raised them on Vancouver Island."

As I say, the second letter I have would indicate that the ministry was satisfied that it was in error. The first letter indicated that the branch had talked to Mr. Wagner, I suppose — Jae's Honey — and he had admitted buying the hives and bringing them in from the mainland somewhere. Later on, it's as though somebody twisted Mr. McCutcheon's arm and he said: "Oh well, I guess you didn't bring them in then, in spite of what you told me earlier. You didn't bring them onto the Island. " Is that correspondence dealing with the same situation? I'm asking the minister if that doesn't seem to indicate that the ministry was changing its position and now has changed it again. Is that what's happened?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If the hon. member wouldn't mind, I'll try to answer that tomorrow as well so I can do a little more research on it. At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.