[ Page 4883 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Victims' Rights and Services Act (Bill 31). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4883

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4883

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Mr. De Jong

Mr. Rabbitt

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT: I'm very pleased today to have my constituency secretary in the members' gallery. She has come down to participate in the seminar that our caucus has put on, and I'm sure she has found it valuable. I would like this House to offer her a very warm welcome: Deanna Gage.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me pleasure to introduce my ministerial assistant, who is in the gallery above us watching the proceedings and the estimates. Would the House please welcome her: Barbara Logie.

Introduction of Bills

VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND SERVICES ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Victims' Rights and Services Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in this province that we have set out some legislative framework to enunciate and endeavour to set out some basic victims' rights. In bringing forward a bill, we looked at the other legislative endeavours in this regard across the country and also in the United States. What we have done, I think, is balance the scales for victims of crime in a rather unique way.

This last fall, Mr. Speaker, I spent two months traveling to 25 communities on the victim assistance program. Again and again, members of the public told me of the difficulties they had in getting information about their cases and the problems they had generally with the criminal justice system. I concluded not only that programs and funds were needed to support community groups so they could perform the very basic and necessary services for victims of crime, but also that legislation was needed to raise the public consciousness of the need to treat victims with dignity and compassion and ensure that victims' programs and services continue to meet their needs. One of the reasons the Justice Reform Committee was struck was the experience of that kind of feedback from people who had been victimized not only by the person who beat them up or robbed them but also by the delays of the criminal justice system. Unless we can make that system less complex, less costly and less mystifying and give people the emotional and other support that they need to go through the system, I think we are failing our citizens in crime prevention and failing to protect the public.

I was very pleased to see as well this year provisions in Bill C-89, which the federal Parliament has just passed and which is in fact before the Senate, which provide a statutory basis for victim impact statements and create a surcharge scheme for fines under the Criminal Code, which our bill makes reference to and appropriates to be used for victims' services. It's a strong statement that our funds, although they're subject to consolidated revenue, will be used for that purpose. British Columbia played a significant role in persuading the federal government to go ahead and pass some major legislation under the Criminal Code for victims of crime, including the authority to videotape child witnesses in child-molesting cases.

Our bill has a preamble which sets out a broad statement of principles or rationale for the bill. It sets out a bill of rights which sets out the victim's right to get information at all stages of the criminal process. This is the strongest statement of this kind for any victims' rights legislation in the country. This legislation sets out a firm recognition of victims' needs and more closely resembles the bill of rights legislation in many American states. It is a statement of the government's commitment to victims' needs.

A victims' fine surcharge creates a new surcharge on offences under the provincial Criminal Code as well. This money will be used to offset the funding for victims' programs and tie in with the federal surcharge. This legislation will be supported on both sides of this House. Normally I would have given an advance of this release to my friend the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) this morning, but I looked for him and was not able to do so. I think he will support this bill in principle; I'm sure that he will. The bill goes as far as we can under our constitutional authority, and I commend this bill to the House. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. We've talked about this before. There have to be some limitations on explaining a bill without going into all its details. I think perhaps they were overstepped here today. I know the minister is eloquent, if not loquacious, but I'd like to draw his attention to practice recommendation No. 5: "Statement Upon Introduction of a Bill. Permit a statement not to exceed two minutes" — it didn't say five minutes — "by the member in charge of the introduction of a bill to explain its purpose. No further debate shall be permitted at this stage."

If it were a private member's bill, I'm wondering if it would be allowed such tolerance. I think we should try and keep them down a little.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The government agrees with the member's observations, Mr. Speaker. Two minutes is the time allotted. If the minister wishes further debate, that is available in second reading.

[10:15]

Orders of the Day

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

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.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo asked a couple of questions which I said I would try and bring answers back for this morning. If I may, I will proceed with one of the answers relative to bee disease on

[ Page 4884 ]

Vancouver Island. The hon. member asked about the directive to have them removed from the Island. There was some concern about whether they were the same hives — the same people that we assessed in our ministry. The answer to the hon. member is yes. The hives were directed to be removed on June 1; that is the letter I read out yesterday.

I think the question you had was why the directive was different, and held back and then reinstated. The reason is that we had to do a little more research on it. Consequently, as of June 1 we have a directive back in place to remove them. Is that satisfactory for your concern?

The other question you asked yesterday was relative to the full-time equivalents in our ministry — the staffing levels. When I became minister there were, counting the transfer of Ministry of Environment and Parks personnel to the fisheries sector, 518 employees. The FIE level for the '88-89 fiscal year is 429. A number of those will go out from the privatization of the two labs.

The other thing is that equivalent staffing may change or fluctuate weekly or daily, so we can't be accurate when you ask about today's.... I believe that's what you asked. It's pretty hard for me to give that exactly today. I'm giving you the broad terms, because staffing may change throughout; in fact, we have a number of positions listed and posted for the ministry. I hope that's satisfactory.

MR. ROSE: Before I start with what I intend to talk about, I would just like to clear up some questions that were asked by the deputy minister and some of his officials about where my farm income assurance indemnity figures came from. I'd like to tell them that they came from Public Accounts, but they probably indicate both the producers' and the government's share. If the numbers seem somewhat inflated, that was the amount of money, according to Public Accounts, that was spent. It didn't indicate the government's support, which is of course only part of that figure. I want to make that clear because I don't like to bandy around false figures. I don't need to exaggerate the immensity of the problem that way. I think both sets of figures — both the government's and the Public Accounts figures — indicate that the two industries, the two commodity groups in greatest trouble, certainly in '86 and '87, were the beef producers and the apple producers. I know there have been programs to assist both of them in addition to this recently, so their trouble might be even greater than we thought.

I want to talk about the marketing boards now. Last October I was shocked to hear on the radio or in some news medium that the Premier had intended to opt out of national marketing boards in order to get a larger share of the milk quota, to bring pressure on the national dairy group to raise the quota from 3.8 on industrial milk to something higher. Apparently he was prepared to sacrifice very successful national plans in turkey, eggs and chickens.

The government seems to have flip-flopped on this and is back-pedaling as hard as it can. But there was a ministerial letter; the Premier and the minister wrote an open letter to the agricultural industry explaining this decision. I think it was terribly risky to do that, because we leave ourselves vulnerable if we don't have any national plan. As I mentioned earlier, I spent hours working on that national legislation when it was first introduced, and it was the only protection we had. We had all kinds of dumping of eggs from Manitoba and chickens from Quebec. We were shipping them off to Japan at fire-sale prices. We needed an orderly plan. To risk this seemed to me reckless and radical, especially since the government of British Columbia agreed to the 3.8 quota. It may be all propaganda, huff and puff to get ready to raise it. There's no argument about it needing to be raised. As I said in my opening statement, things are quite different today than they were then, for a variety of reasons which need not be repeated here; and I don't intend to do so.

My first question is whether that intent to withdraw still stands. I'd like to know: has the notice been served officially? I don't think it has, but the producer groups are very concerned. So what's the status of that threat at the moment? That's number one. If you want to write that down, I'll go through my little pitch and then you can perhaps respond. I think it will save time; at least I hope it will.

There are some problems in some of the marketing commodity groups, as the minister knows. There's a problem with unpaid quotas as far as the chicken producers are concerned. There's a 3 percent cut in production. I'd like to know what the minister is going to do about that particular problem for the Chicken Marketing Board. I understand he's involved somehow, but I'm not certain how. The minister, as distinct from the Premier, is apparently involved this time. I would like to know the extent of his involvement and what he's trying to do. That gives him a platform. I think I've thrown him a bouquet of roses there, a little gift.

Turkeys, of course, didn't want to get involved in the milk industry fight at all, so they're out of it. I guess the turkey industry can't be expected to support that move on that opt out on the part of the minister and the Premier,

I've got some questions here about the milk problem. Everybody knows that more than once — as a matter of fact, more than twice — the Premier's office appears to have intervened in this business with the Milk Board. They're called rebels; they're called mavericks; they're called dissidents. Anyway, four or five dissident....

MR. CLARK: Contras.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if they're contras.

Anyway, four or five dissident milk producers have been shipping manufactured milk against the rules of the Milk Board. I have a number of letters, and we know all about this. Ultimately, after two court cases, God knows how much money was spent on this on the part of the milk producers — there's one of them sitting over there getting ready to probably ask the same questions as me.

Ultimately we had Cyril Shelford involved in a commission of inquiry to look into this matter. His report indicated that millions of dollars were involved in a special offer to these people by the government. I'd like to know about that special offer. I want to know: is the opt-out threat still alive for these people? There are only four of them left. I think one of them went out of business — a fire or a bankruptcy, or something like that. I want to know whether or not the intent to have these people included still exists.

The minister said he has accepted the Shelford report. That's not the point. I want to know if the Premier has.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, he hasn't said that, and I'd like the minister to tell me that, because that's important.

So the threat now is to opt out. The last time we opted out, it cost about a million and a half to get back in — $300,000 a

[ Page 4885 ]

year when we opted out once before. So opting out is not to be taken recklessly or lightly in the national plan, for a number of other consequences which I won't go into here.

The other question, which 1 touched on the other day: are the rebel milk producers still moving their milk, and if so, where is it going? Because it's contrary to the law. I understand that the Milk Board has hired a private detective. Is that so? What do we know about the Milk Board's detectives? Are they working hard? How much do they cost? Any plans to change the legislation if the legislation has been thrown out by the court? What are the Milk Board's legal costs so far? How much does it cost for the detective? Have public funds been used to underwrite the costs of the rebel milk producers?

There are lots of other questions associated with that whole thing that I don't wish to go into now. Perhaps those are enough. But before I sit down on that subject, I'd like to talk a little bit about the mushroom producers, who for three years have been given the mushroom treatment. Without going into a lot of detail, they've been asking for a marketing board with supply management. Some Supreme Court decision prevented them from making any semblance of order in mushroom production, and pool prices have been driven down because of all the overproduction.

Sure, there's been growth in consumption, but the number of growers in 1966 was 65. In 1986 the square footage doubled in terms of production; it's gone from 1.4 million in 1976 to 2.9 million now. So they've got overproduction even though consumption has gone up about threefold. Now the board wants to limit production. They want orderly domestic export market growth. They want more orderly entry of new growers, because the growers have just piled into the business. More stable returns. As we've seen from the business of farm income assurance, commodities are not in trouble if they have some sort of orderly marketing scheme, or unless they enjoy some specialty — like raspberries and blueberries — that allows them to penetrate a market where these commodities aren't grown.

So what about the Mushroom Marketing Board proposal for supply management? Has the minister considered it? Will he agree that if he doesn't do it soon and we get free trade involved in here, he may not be able to do it? Certain marketing boards are grandfathered, and under free trade they won't be permitted as a new entry — at least, it's unlikely that they will be. Is the minister aware that the mushroom producers have made efforts to deal with traditional criticisms — you know, "a nice little club, a little union." They're interested in providing quota entry of up to 20 percent for new entrants and the maintenance of a free market. Is there a problem because the Premier doesn't support marketing boards or supply management? That would perhaps be another question that the minister might address.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I'll leave that, I think. There are a lot of questions here. Then I'll move on to another topic.

[10:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: First to my hon. critic, thank you for making the statement relative to the indemnity fund as it relates to FII, the contributions as they relate to the government responsibility and those contributed by the farming community themselves. I commend him for correcting what might have been a misinterpretation of what the actual funding was.

One of the first questions you touched on was the issue of the federal MSQ — or, for those of you who do not know, market share quota — as it relates to industrial milk, We don't have to touch the fluid milk at all, because fluid milk is a provincial jurisdiction. But when we get into the federal MSQ, it's an allotment basis agreed to among the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee and all the different signatories to that agreement.

You asked about the opt-out notice. The opt-out notice was originally set at June 30, 1988, which is just a few days away. The agreement we have in place, as of last week, is to extend the notice to September 30. In the meantime, the task force that went across the country assessing the allocation of federal MSQ for industrial purposes will have filed its report, and some recommendations will be coming forward. Our Milk Board is presently negotiating what terms of reference would be related to allocation on a federal basis and what could B.C. expect over the next three to five years in the way of an increase in allocation. You referred to 3.8 percent. It amounts to 6,158,000 kilograms of butterfat. We consume in this province, as I stated the other day, approximately 18.3 million kilograms of butterfat. Obviously we would like to get up to a fairer share, closer to our domestic consumption. But even if we were to achieve that tomorrow — we wouldn't, but even if we were — we don't have the dairy cattle to possibly produce that. The best way, I believe, hon. member, is for us to phase the increases of the MSQ and allow the herds to build accordingly, as the industrial allotment is increased.

MR. ROSE: But before you do that, the intent to withdraw still stands.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member makes a statement that the intent to withdraw still stands. I have made the commitment that I would go back to the producers before the notice would be served. I made that at the March 25 meeting, and I think he may well have heard about it.

If I can switch over to the chicken quota, you asked about the three million kilogram cutback by the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, the penalties. There's a substantial penalty — I believe it’s $630, 917 — for overproduction of quota, which we believe is the responsibility of the producers who overproduce that amount of chicken. But we do not agree with the three million kilogram cutback in the global quota that they've taken back from us. I'm asking that we have a special hearing relative to why, when B.C.'s consumption is continuing to rise, we were cut back on the global quota. I think we have to appeal the decision.

We also see other opportunities in specialty markets. I think you're well aware that there are opportunities not only within the domestic market of British Columbia; there may well be golden opportunities in the export sector. Those are parts of the key areas concerned that I personally would like to see addressed. I have sent a letter, in fact, hon. member, to the CCMA, saying that we request a view of why the global allocation was cut back in the amount it was for British Columbia.

[ Page 4886 ]

You referred to the milk producers who were presently shipping in the fluid system, and of course a certain percentage of the pooled milk goes out as industrial. Your question related to the Premier's intervention: did he intervene in any way? The answer is, it still comes back to that we have discussed this on many occasions among not only ministers and caucus.... We want the milk producers to understand that what we're really trying to do is get them a fair share or an increase in their ability to supply that industrial sector. It would enhance the opportunity for creation of more jobs in some of the cheese plants, for example, that were proposed or asked to be put into operation, the limiting factor being that we didn't have enough of the federal MSQ. Consequently, we as a government have gone to the producers and said: "We will come back to you before any decision is made relative to the opt-out."

You talked about the re-entry back in 1984, when we opted out at something a little better than 2.5 percent of the federal MSQ. You talked about penalties. They were being held back anyhow; they were automatically collected. To say it was a penalty going back in.... If you were in, you would have had to pay them anyhow. They were still collected by the board. We negotiated the re-entry back into the system and came up with the 3.7 percent allocation that we have. The four producers that you refer to — call them what you like; I heard an hon. member over here say "contra, " and I don't quite refer to it as that — were part of the system in 1984 when we opted out, except for the possibility of one, as you well recollect. There again, their interpretation of the day — and that's consequently all the legal battles we've gone through — was that it was legal to produce milk if we were not part of the federal MSQ program. That's the contentious part they have gone through the court system for in the last four years.

You asked what was happening with their milk today. I get a call almost every other day from one or two of them who are dumping their milk out the back door. What's happening with the other two I'm not too sure, hon. member, but we do have a person who is monitoring whether they market that milk. There is no legal requirement to stop the milk from being produced. You could produce milk to feed hogs or veal or for whatever other purposes, as long as it isn't marketed. If a person decided to produce milk to feed veal or hogs, you'd have one heck of a time if you told him he had to have a licence to do it. The licence he has to have is for marketing purposes. That's what we are watching and that's why we have somebody on the road monitoring what's happening with that product.

You also talked about public funds being used to support the dissident milk producers. The only public funds that have been used have been for the inquiry that Mr. Shelford undertook. Beyond that, no. You also asked about a special.... 

MR. ROSE: Legal costs.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The legal costs — no. They have borne the cost of their defence.

MR. ROSE: How much?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't have those figures, but we can get them for you. That's really paid for by the milk producers themselves. The only thing I have directed in public funds is the work that Cyril Shelford did on the inquiry into the producers themselves.

You talked a bit about the request for the mushroom producers to have a marketing system or a supply management system of their own. They have a volunteer one in place right now. It wasn't too long ago that they took a voluntary — I believe it was a 10 percent square footage — cutback in growing space in their dark houses. It is quite true that the returns, as you have mentioned, have come down substantially to the producers. Whether supply and management is a total answer remains to be seen. I'm still having a look at it.

On my last trip to Japan we saw opportunities for expanded markets within the Japanese economy where we have a pretty top-notch product. With the present shipping technologies, it arrives there in excellent shape and is as good or even better than a domestically grown product. I don't think I have to reiterate, hon. member, that quality is the important thing, and the producers have to understand that if they have a really high quality product, they shouldn't have any problem — I don't think — marketing outside of the domestic market.

We know there have been some problems domestically relative to the growth of the industry. It has grown very fast. You have quoted some figures there, and I recognize that fully, but they have to do a little more aggressive marketing program too to some extent. If the opportunities are there for expansion, the markets are there. Whether we need the supply management proviso at this stage still remains to be seen. We are still having a look at it.

MR. ROSE: Again, the minister's responses bristle with far more questions than we probably have time to deal with here. There are a number of questions about whether or not you are going to change the legislation on the Milk Board stuff. There are all kinds of things that might be considered, but we've made some commitments here this morning about not prolonging this. We've had a fair amount of time on this; therefore I will discipline myself. I'm not sure I could discipline others.

I want to talk now a little about the Land Commission because it is and always has been a controversial piece of legislation. As I mentioned yesterday, it was part of a partnership deal that we preserve the land on the one hand and the farm income assurance program would preserve income, because we didn't want people frozen into some sort of peonage. We didn't want them to retire on the proceeds of farmland that happened to be contiguous to large cities; they have sat there like a plum and round-heeled councils just used to roll over in allowing this important and tremendous resource — a very valuable and irrecoverable one — to be blacktopped. So that's essentially the background on that.

I've got some figures I'd like to enter into the records. The net loss since the legislation came in is about 27,000 hectares. Nearly 9,000 are prime land. To give a person an idea, as I mentioned yesterday, 16,000 acres is about threequarters of the area of the city of Vancouver. The net loss of agricultural land is about 27,000 hectares, about two and a half times the area of the city of Vancouver. I know that some people are going to counter that argument and say: "Sure, we've excluded some, but we've also included some." Well, I think if you look at where the exclusions and inclusions are, you'll find that the inclusions include a lot of rangeland — the Laird River, the Peace and places like that where's it's seasonally disadvantaged.

[ Page 4887 ]

So much for the loss and the protection. I talked about ELUC and other things yesterday, and I don't intend to repeat that. But there is a new threat against the farmland bank. and that is that the Premier has instructed the ministers of state to recommend the breakup of the Land Commission into the various regions. I've got the documents here. A draft terms of reference dated March 31, 1988. We had a Land Commission that for the most part has been fairly staunch, and then we have ELUC, which has been absolutely scandalous, in my view. What's happened is that in the last three years, 75 percent of the appeals to cabinet over the heads of the Land Commission have passed. I think it's unacceptable.

I want to know something about the balkanization of the ALR. Yesterday we heard about referenda and going to the people in terms of school spending. You never hear about it when you talk about privatization of highways, or the Land Commission, or other juicy little matters such as that. Most people support it. I want to ask whether the draft terms of reference dated March 31 are the same for all regions or whether we are going to have a variegated Land Commission throughout the province.

[10:45]

It says here: "A deceptively simple and comprehensive study into the identification of the agricultural land and food sector as a contributor to the regional economy." Does the minister have this information already? There's a pamphlet from his ministry that gives us that right here, so I don't know why we're studying it.

I want to know if the minister can confirm that the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan has delegated the task to the parliamentary secretary, who has no staff at all to assist him.

Did the Penticton council in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen unanimously approve a motion supporting the present structure of the ALR? That would seem to me to put the member in a rather embarrassing position.

What process is being followed in the Bulkley Valley by the Len Fox group that is dealing with this? Is Mayor Fox prepared to meet with all elected officials in the area? Is he aware of the division in the Bulkley Valley around this?

Go to the Peace River. The regional district has taken the view that they have unique and special needs in their area, so they must have a commission all of their own. Does the minister accept this view, which means a return to pre-1972, where any developer could go to a round-heeled council and push it over? That's why we had a greenbelt. Are we returning to that?

Here's another term of reference: ''To enhance...economic opportunities through the identification and promotion of opportunities of enhanced agricultural development." What exactly does that mean? Vacant positions in the ministry: trade and development officer, market analysis. Is the phrasing of that term of reference just a euphemism for subdividing and building on agricultural land?

The government has always argued that there's been nowhere for the people to appeal the Land Commission's decision, and that that body is the provincial cabinet. I want to know whether it is the government's position that appeals are to be handled by the parliamentary secretary to the minister. Or are they still going to go to cabinet, as weak as that has been?

Those are a few general questions. After you’ve answered them, I want to move to the matter of Terra Nova, because I think it sums up many of our concerns.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There were a number of questions asked. A lot of them relate to policy. I think there is no doubt that the questions you asked about the more than 27,000 hectares that have been a net loss.... You might well know that when the Land Commission brought forward its recommendations on the fine-tuning of Vancouver Island, it was recommended to ELUC that a large number of those hectares come out. So quite a substantial amount of that was a recommendation that had to come forward to ELUC in the fine-tuning process. That was a responsibility of the commission when they brought in the recommendations, and they were accepted.

There is also, in my judgment, a number of areas where there needs to be more fine-tuning. There are areas in this province that probably are not in the ALR which maybe should be. When the all-encompassing ALR act came in to map out the area, there was a lot of fine-tuning that I think could have been done which wasn't done at the time, and it's going to take a long process to go through the whole province to see what should be and what shouldn't. I see nothing wrong with that. I myself support the holding of good agricultural land as our food-producing base.

Relative to the regional ministers' of state discussion that you touched on, we are doing a review within the ministry of the Land Commission itself. We talked about ministers of state. The ministers of state who hold responsibility for the regions are suggesting that maybe there are some ways that things could be changed. That doesn't mean they have to be adopted-, it's only part of the review process. It's not a commitment, per se, at this stage.

The last question you asked was about the appeal process — whether the ministers of state should make the recommendations. That's not necessarily so. It could be part of the process. I'm not saying this is what policy will be, but there could be a director, for example, from each one of those regions who would make recommendations on ALR applications and who in turn could report to the Land Commission. That's a possibility as well. I think the appeal process and the main body of the Land Commission have to stay as they are. The appeal process should be still to the elected people, who have to be held responsible for the decision they make. The issue of whether the Land Commission.... As I said the other day, as I understand it, about 93 percent of the applications that come in are dealt with by the Land Commission. Only about 7 percent of those come forward to ELUC beyond that.

There might be a couple of questions I've missed there, hon. member, but I think that covers the broad spectrum of it.

MR. ROSE: There are lots of euphemisms around here, like "adjustment grants" — those are for the losers in free trade. "Fine-tuning" is an appealing phrase. There perhaps are areas that, in the rush of the legislation, were taken by the Canada Land Inventory and then designated on that basis. There may be good and sufficient reasons for some exclusions. What worries us is that they always seem to come around large cities; the fine-tuning seems to be necessary there — Terra Nova, the May property. And it seems to help a lot if you happen to have good contacts at the Premier's office or some other place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOENEN: Here we go again.

[ Page 4888 ]

MR. ROSE: I would invite the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), who wants to blacktop Terra Nova, to get up here and make a speech as soon as I'm finished. I will certainly welcome your speech.

Let's talk a little bit about Terra Nova. You've got 464 acres there. The Land Commission — put in place to preserve agricultural land — recommended strongly against that. Here's what they said: "Terra Nova is agriculturally the...best we have." There is enough other land in Richmond for seven years of future residential growth. No justification exists on the future residential use on the basis of need. You don't need it, so why are we doing it? It wouldn't have anything to do with the connections between the Premier's campaign plane rides and what's happening here, would it? That's what some people think.

There are all kinds of regional alternatives available for residential growth. You've got all the hillsides of Coquitlam and Maple Ridge for residential growth. You don't have to have it right.... Three-quarters of Terra Nova is non-urban on its boundaries. The ALC agrees with the report on agriculture prepared for the Richmond council, which found: "Any significant use, impact or conversion will irreversibly impair the ability of agriculture to coexist as a healthy parallel community to the urban component." Terra Nova is now surrounded by 75 percent abuts non-urban uses. Public submissions received by the ALC supported the land's continued designation in the ALR. And yet it's gone, on virtually a tied vote from council.

There are public hearings where you have so many people coming out that you have to adjourn the meetings because there are so many. At a recent hearing there were 68 speakers; only three supported the development. A poll taken in Richmond said 87 percent of people in Richmond were in opposition. Why is it going ahead? It's going ahead because the council went over the heads of the ALR and went to ELUC. It wasn't needed. It was a windfall profit of millions. That's why it's in there.

The sister-in-law of one of the principals in this consortium was on the advisory planning commission out in Richmond, and I just think it's unacceptable. I'd like the minister to try and explain this to us, because it looks to me like a conflict of interest. It looks to me like the horror story of what can happen when you have this insider pressure to take land out of....

This is what we tried to avoid through the Land Commission, and now through an appeals process to council, we get 75 percent of them passing. Only 7 percent get by the Land Commission. Unless you're well-connected, I guess you don't win. That's the lesson I've heard from very close quarters. A friend of mine says: "I'll tell you what I'll do. I want land out of the Land Commission. I'm going to get a well-connected Socred lawyer and I'll get it out." That's what he said. That's the case.

I know my friend from Vancouver East wants to talk a bit about this same matter, so I wonder if we could....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if he wants to speak.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Obviously I'm not allowed under cabinet oath to give any details of the discussion of that particular application, but I can tell you this much. From an agricultural perspective, there was only one farmer out of the Richmond farmers who showed an interest in farming that land. Several were approached.

The limiting factor that we seem to overshadow here is that if you tried to aerial spray, you couldn't do it — number one. Number two, if you tried to intensive farm the particular application of the 400 and some acres — some of which is the Quilchena golf course, by the way — you could not do it. If you tried to run beef feed lots or a hog operation on there, the same people would make sure it was not allowed. How can you be so hypocritical?

You can't sit there and say it should be agricultural and then tell a farmer that he can't farm certain things on it. There are several limiting factors that were part of the process. It's not all just public perception. You have to have an agriculturist or a farmer who can make a living on a particular parcel. I can tell you, there are a number of concerns about the chemicals that would be used if it was put into vegetable production, from an environmental sensitivity point of view, because you're right at the end of the dike and the drainage systems. There are several things we're talking about beyond public perception.

MR. ROSE: I'll try not to be too hypocritical, but I think the minister knows that there are all kinds of chemicals used out in Delta right next to the dike. It's hardly a strong argument.

There are people who say.... I quote Cheryl Lum. To my knowledge, they've been there since the early 1900s. They say they could farm it, and they did for years and years. I haven't seen any right-to-farm in legislation brought in by the minister. He talks about hog operations or feed lots or whatever — of course there are going to be objections on that ground.

I'll tell you the biggest objection. It's like the May property, which was an earlier example of this same thing: urban intrusion into agricultural land, strategically located, a round-heels council that moves on all these things with I don't know what motivation; I couldn't pretend to. But once you allow it to happen to one, why should anybody want to farm for the return they get when it could be turned at windfall profits into urban land?

A farmer may be tied to the land, but he isn't entirely stupid. What's going next — Colony Farm in my riding for some purpose such as urban intrusion? Nobody is going to farm that land if they can turn it into a windfall profit worth millions. It has nothing to do with agriculture; it has everything to do with windfall profits.

[11:00]

MR. LOENEN: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue at hand. I think it's a very important one. It certainly has been extremely important to my community, and it is a very emotional issue. We see evidence of that even this morning. If there's any issue that requires a calm, rational debate, it's this one. I'll try to give some of my reflections on it, because it has been uppermost in my mind since 1983 when I first became a member of the municipal council. There was a time when I too opposed the development of Terra Nova lands.

If there is any issue that shows the importance of and the necessity for having an appeal body such as ELUC, this issue shows the importance of it. If you look at the Agricultural Land Commission, it has a very narrowly focused task. Its mandate is to preserve agricultural land. A municipal council, and indeed this Legislature, has a far broader mandate,

[ Page 4889 ]

which has to take into consideration many other aspects of what makes the community tick.

So it is that the municipality of Richmond, in 1983, issued a very lengthy and substantial process of consultation and studying the needs of the community. I'd just like to relate for the members some of those experiences. It was an eye-opener to me that when the advisory planning committee of council, in 1983, started to look at the Terra Nova issue, they were, to a person, opposed to the development. Nine months later, after they had canvassed all the issues very thoroughly, there was only one person at that point who still opposed it.

What I think I experienced during that lengthy process is something that goes on time and again when people really sit down and impartially and objectively look at all the issues involved. They come to the conclusion that the needs of the community are much better met by having some of that land developed.

There was a very lengthy consultation and information process during '85 and '86. During 1987 there was a municipal election which was fought on the development of Terra Nova. Again we went through the whole process. The result was that some of those people who claimed to speak for the majority and who ran on the basis that Terra Nova ought to remain agricultural land were defeated. They lost. Yet to this day the members opposite, as well as the members in Richmond that are represented by the NDP, will tell us time and again that they are the voice of the people. The facts simply do not bear it out.

If any issue has shown that democracy works, it's this issue. All this talk about there being undue political influences — none of it has been proven; none of it has stood up to scrutiny. I find it very disappointing that time and again nevertheless, for political reasons, the members opposite go on and on about this.

There are vast changes taking place in our community. If you look at British Columbia, we have in active production the same acreage for agricultural purposes that tiny Denmark does, yet their total production is 6.7 times ours. Why? Because they know and understand what it means to do intensive farming.

I know that there is an increasing movement towards more intensive fanning. Even in my community, right at the comer of Blundell and No. 6 Road, there is a tiny little lot. It's about 120 feet by 60 feet. It has a small bungalow on it and a small building. It employs eight people full-time. They grow enough bean sprouts there for the whole of the lower mainland. Those types of intensive forms of agriculture are increasingly popular and possible. All I'm saying is that the situation is changing continuously, and we have to respond to that.

In brief, I just want to say that from my experience, the main thing that we ought to understand is that there is always room and need for bodies such as ELUC, because organizations and commissions such as the Land Commission have very specialized, narrowly focused tasks, but the needs of the community are varied and very broad. There needs to be a forum where all of these conflicting demands for jobs, housing and agriculture, and the interplay between them, can be totally and fully aired, and then some compromise arrived at. I think that is precisely what took place in this instance. I think it is a responsible process. It's open to attack, as we've seen, yet I feel a lot of that is misunderstanding induced by political considerations. There must be a responsible way in which the conflicting demands of the community can be met. They have been met through this mechanism. I welcome it, and I'm willing to support and defend it at any time.

MR. CLARK: I notice that the second member for Richmond is supporting something. I guess it's the agricultural estimates that he's been speaking on.

I want to talk about Terra Nova. I think this is the biggest scandal in this government — in a government plagued by scandals. The Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed that the cabinet removed this land from the land reserve, and so should the second member for Richmond.

We know that 1,300 citizens attended public hearings on this matter before. and almost all of them were opposed to the hearings. We know that in June 1986, the Richmond Advisory Planning Commission — chaired by the sister-in-law and an employee of Progressive Construction — recommended removing it. If that's not a conflict of interest.... These little councils like Richmond that go and bend over backwards for the developers.... Surely that's the role of the provincial government: to not allow this kind of control by these kinds of people.

We see employees of the major landowner making recommendations to have the land removed from the land reserve. What did the Land Commission say? "It's the best farmland in British Columbia." That's the experts, the agrologists, the political appointments of this government, who said it was the best farmland in British Columbia. "There's no justification, " they said, "to remove it." What did Prof. Art Bomke, the soil science professor at UBC say? "The best farmland in British Columbia, " he said. What about Evelina Vaupotic and Cheryl Lum and all the tenant farmers on the site, many of whom weren't consulted about the development by the developer" "The best farmland in British Columbia."

The cabinet is asked by the Richmond city council to overrule the position of the Land Commission and all the experts in the field. So what do they do? The cabinet went back to the Land Commission for advice, and I'm sure the minister probably had a hand in that. Again the Land Commission said it would be a travesty to remove this land from the land reserve. But the cabinet made a political decision to overrule all the experts in the field. Why did they do that, Mr. Member?

Let's take a look at some of the numbers, Mr. Chairman. Let's take a look at why these developers — developers buying farmland and not farming it — want their land removed from the land reserve. Who are these people"

The cabinet removed 320 acres from the land reserve against the objections of all the experts in the field. Agricultural land in Richmond is worth $20,000 an acre. That means the land in agricultural production is worth $6.4 million. Isn't that right? The member shakes his head. Agricultural land. But $140,000 an acre, very conservative, net of servicing, etc., for residential land.... So the land is now worth $44.8 million. Someone — the owners of that land, because of a political decision by this government — makes $38.4 million in pure profit because of a decision made by the Premier and the cabinet to overrule the experts. The potential for corruption, Mr. Member and Mr. Chairman, is unbelievable. When one individual can make millions of dollars because of a political decision, the potential for corruption is unbelievable.

Let's deal with the proposal that's before Richmond city council now. It is the subject of the longest political hearing in

[ Page 4890 ]

Richmond history. We're seeing hundreds of people come out opposed to the development. Hundreds of people see this flawed process, where private developers hire their own plans, don't tell aldermen that in fact this provincial Ministry of Environment and the federal Ministry of Environment are against the removal of this land into residences. We see all kinds of deals going on. What is the proposal? The application is for 210 acres, of which Mr. Ilich owns at least 175 acres.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.)

He bought those between 1985 and May 1986 — 175 acres. Now Mrs. Ilich, the sister-in-law who's on the planning commission, says: "We can give 50 acres for parkland." Why can we give 50 acres for parkland? She said it's worth $12.5 million. She says: "Because we bought the land for $5,000 an acre. We're going to give 50 acres for park. We're really good, kind-hearted people. That is worth $12.5 million."

Mr. Chairman, if the land they're giving for parkland is worth $12.5 million, then it's now worth — according to Mrs. Ilich — $250,000 an acre. We know they're going to give 50 acres for park and 20 acres for roads; 140 acres are going to be developed. Using Mr. Ilich's own numbers, the land is worth $250,000 an acre, or $35 million. Mr. Rich says: "Oh, well, I only paid $5,000 for some of the land; I paid $40,000 an acre for the rest of it." So if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he paid $40,000 for all 140 acres, then the land was worth $5.6 million when he purchased it. We know it's less than that, but let's give him the benefit. That means the pure profit to one individual is $29.4 million because of the removal of this land and because of this political decision.

This individual gave or lent his helicopter to the Premier during his leadership campaign. Isn't that interesting? This is an individual who makes no secret of financially supporting the Social Credit Party; he makes no secret of financially supporting the Premier of the province. He makes $29.4 million because of a political decision, against all the experts in British Columbia — $29 million, one individual.

Mr. Minister, I have a number of questions for you. First of all, can the minister inform the House how much Mr. Ilich gave to his campaign in the last election?

MR. LOENEN: It goes on and on. One of the reasons why we have these very lengthy public hearings is that it's not a public hearing; it's a demonstration orchestrated by the socialists who don't like the fact that they cannot win elections in Richmond.

I want to point out a few things. Who is against profits? Who is against creating more jobs for the people of Richmond? That project will create some 11,000 jobs. Are you against jobs? Are you against profits? It is very easy for you to stand up there and ramble on about very selected figures and make it sound as though somebody is going to walk away with a pile of gold.

I want you to know that property has been vacant for over 20 years. It was 1967 when, under the planning provisions of the GVRD, that land was designated "urban." In 1972, your government put it back in agriculture after the farmers had left. That land has been sitting fallow for all those years. When you add up all those figures, you should go back and add up all the taxes that have been paid, the interest charges, and on and on it goes. There's a long history behind this.

What you also forgot to mention is the cost of servicing those properties. People have lost money and people have made money on that property over the years. But for 20 years it's been sitting fallow.

[11:15]

Regarding the 50 acres for park: in addition to the jobs and to the fact that it will create amenities for the people of my municipality, there has never been a rezoning that has contributed potentially as much to our community as this particular rezoning. Instead of knocking that, we ought to welcome that. Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, they don't need to give more than about 15 acres. Once that entire project has been completed, there will be 75 acres set aside for the use of the people of my community. You ought to mention that and not just talk in derogatory ways about the people who are developing that. You ought to recognize that they have.... The principals of Progressive were born and raised in Richmond. They've made a tremendous contribution over the years, and you ought to acknowledge that and not simply knock them.

Mr. Chairman, we could go on about this, but I want you to note just two things. First, there is a process that is democratic. As I've said earlier, we have seen it through 1985, 1986 and 1987, and we're seeing it today. The majority of council is there to govern on behalf of the majority of the people of Richmond, and that's what they're doing, and we ought to applaud that. Are you against democracy? Are you in favour of demonstrations? Are you in favour of the minority ruling the majority and frustrating the wishes of the majority of the people of Richmond? You can talk all you want about the vast numbers of people who come out there. The truth is that when they ran candidates on that platform, they got roundly defeated. It's the job of the people there now who have been democratically elected to fulfill and to put in place the wishes of the majority of the people, and that is being done.

MR. CLARK: The comments of the second member for Richmond are interesting. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shares it, because he obviously doesn't believe in the Land Commission. He's saying it should be up to local councils to decide whether to pave farmland. That's the way it was before 1972. That was local democracy in action.

What happened was that this government, the provincial government, created the Land Commission in order to protect agricultural land from rounder councils in places like Richmond that were in the pockets of developers. We're seeing it again. This government doesn't have the guts, as previous governments had, to stand up to those developers in favour of agricultural land. This Minister of Agriculture participated in a decision to remove the best agricultural land from farm production, and he should be ashamed of himself.

The member says: "Oh, the magnanimous gesture of the Ilichs, who gave 50 acres of land when they paid $5,000 for it." They're going to make $30 million, even if you take that 50 acres out. If I was going to make $30 million, he might be more magnanimous as well. How much money would he give to your campaign, Mr. Member? How much money did he give to yours? How much money did he give to the Premier's? We know he gave money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would suggest to you that what you have just said is completely inappropriate

[ Page 4891 ]

in the setting of dealing with the estimates and vote 9. When you suggest election funds are paid and you also suggest that corruption is involved in all of this, hon. member, I think it is completely out of line. I also find it very difficult to accept the fact that the machinations of the council of Richmond have absolutely anything at all to do with vote 9. Please, some relevancy would be most appreciated.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, all I said was that we know that the owner of the land who stands to make $30 million because of a decision by cabinet on agricultural land is also a contributor to the Social Credit Party and financed the leadership campaign of the current Premier and lent his helicopter. That's completely in order. I can't help but say that there is some connection between the two.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, I've been listening quite intently to this debate. I've heard the hon. member do what I believe is casting aspersions upon another hon. member of this House. I would ask that he withdraw. I realize he's a new member of the House, but he ought to know that that is not permissible in this House.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to know what the member would like me to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hate to interject again, but there has been, it seems to me, motives imputed to other members of this House, and that is entirely improper.

MR. CLARK: On the advice of my House Leader, I withdraw any imputation of motives. It's simply a remarkable coincidence that the major contributor to the leadership campaign had his land removed from the land reserve and stands to make $30 million.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member ought also to know that you can't inadvertently say what you cannot say directly, and I would ask that he withdraw without equivocation.

MR. ROSE: I think that my hon. friend for Vancouver East would certainly be prepared to withdraw certain imputations, as he's already done. But I think he is permitted to discuss certain kinds of facts and relationships in this House and let the facts speak for themselves.

MR. R. FRASER: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: I always like to surprise my colleagues in the House.

It's my pleasure today to introduce 55 grade 7 students from Sir Wilfred Laurier School who are joined here by their teachers Mrs. Allen and Mr. Ballantyne. They're here to learn a little bit about how the House operates and some of the history of the Legislative Assembly, and I would ask you to join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister inform the House the reason behind the cabinet's overruling all of the experts in the field and removing the land from the land reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, because that is a cabinet committee.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, that's not acceptable. The member talks about where there should be appeals. We have a forum now. the Land Commission, that adjudicated on this matter, that put a lot of thought into it, that heard submissions and decided to protect the land for agricultural production. When the cabinet overrules that decision, it's incumbent upon them to explain why they've overruled it. Otherwise the inferences that were drawn earlier become even clearer, unless the minister is prepared to explain his actions and those of his cabinet colleagues with respect to removing this valuable land from agricultural production.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There's no doubt the decision is made. As I said, I cannot give the details of a cabinet committee discussion. I pointed out some of the things to the hon. critic about why some of those areas were brought forward. The Land Commission was in attendance, as you can well appreciate, and didn't entirely disagree.

MR. CLARK: The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries doesn't agree with the Land Commission in this respect. He doesn't agree with the Land Commission's decision that this is the best farmland in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I never said that, but I do believe there's better.

MR. CLARK: Does the Minister of Agriculture agree that this land can be fanned productively, as the Agricultural Land Commission does, or is it his advice or his belief that the commission is wrong and that. no, this is not good farmland?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't have to remind the member that that's the mandate by which the Land Commission makes a decision. It empowers itself within the act to make a decision on the basis of its capability.

MR. CLARK: So the member agrees with the Agricultural Land Commission that this is good-quality farmland?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I suppose if I went over there piece by piece and did the same thing from my soil specialty, I could find some bad spots in it too. But in general, yes, it's fairly good farmland.

MR. CLARK: Does the Minister of Agriculture, then, in his capacity as someone who presumably is fighting to protect farmland in British Columbia — or should be — participate and support the Agricultural Land Commission in their endeavour to have this land saved?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Not on the entire presentation, as I earlier indicated.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister inform the House on what parts of their presentation he supported them, and on which parts he disagreed?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I will not do that.

[ Page 4892 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Presumably there are soil-quality differences. Was that part of the thinking of the minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I will not reveal that either, but obviously there are if you look at the soil maps.

MR. WILLIAMS: Something as obvious as soil quality is hardly a state secret, and it's hardly asking too much for the minister to explain that. How do you find it easy to dismiss the recommendations of the specialists in the Land Commission?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That was part of the discussion. I'm not willing to reveal the details of that discussion.

MR. WILLIAMS: What we are talking about here is not the cabinet. It is a committee of cabinet established by statute. It hears open public submissions from many parties. It is not a cabinet meeting at all, so don't hide behind the shroud of cabinet secrecy; that does not apply, Mr. Member. Don't use that shroud of cabinet secrecy. ELUC can hold public meetings and forums and so on — and does, yes. So don't you use that. We want you to stand up here and say that when the pressure is put on and friends of the Premier come in the door, you buckle under. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is absolutely not true. There was a statement made yesterday that pretty well every application that has come before ELUC has been accepted. That is absolutely false.

MR. WILLIAMS: Only when they're friends of government, only when they make major donations, only when they lend their helicopters to the Premier for leadership campaigns: only then do you buckle under. Is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what has happened. Right now we have unprecedented hearings going on in Richmond — the longest in their history. Doesn't that cause you to pause and reflect on the decision that was made? Doesn't that make you think twice about the process you went through? Isn't that telling you something — that the people of Richmond have some real doubts about what's happened there? Doesn't it bother you that this kind of phenomenal windfall should go to one person or a friend of the Premier in these circumstances? Isn't that a concern in terms of reasonable public policy?

We have hungry kids in Vancouver that you and your government will do nothing for, and you sit idly by, happy to live with a $29 million windfall for Mr. Ilich. Don't those things ever cross your mind at the same time and cause you to think about the unfairness and that government can do something about that kind of gross unfairness? Didn't it ever cross your mind that it would be a reasonable concern? Didn't it ever cross your mind that $29 million to Mr. Ilich was simply too much?

[11:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, but the details weren't available as to what the figure would be.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister has at least, I'm pleased to see, expressed some concern. But you have a whole ministry staff that could advise you what those numbers are. It doesn't take some international expert to tell you that the land is worth $150,000 or $200,000 an acre once it's rezoned. You could phone up any real estate man in Richmond. Why wouldn't you check out those numbers if there was a flash of concern? Why wouldn't you hire somebody if your own staff couldn't do it? You hire all kinds of consultants through the year. Why wouldn't you do that and then think about the fairness of it and whether that kind of windfall should indeed go to the Premier's friend?

MR. DE JONG: From time to time the Speaker asks for guidance for the members of this House. We ask that we may be guardians of the resources of British Columbia, and also that we may work to serve the people of this province to the best of our ability. It's unfortunate that a debate of this nature and the resource that we're talking about has been degraded in this debate to the degree that it has been by the members of the opposition. I think we all know that agricultural land is a scarce commodity in B.C., considering our total land area.

We also know that the majority of B.C.'s mountains where our rich forests grow are not necessarily good for housing, and from time to time we speak in this House about affordable housing. In fact, we've heard much from the socialist corner of the House in previous debates about affordable housing, social housing and what have you. If I sense the direction that I hear from the other side of the House — from the socialist comer — as to what they want to do, it's to preserve all agricultural land, regardless of the population growth in B.C. Pile them up higher — 12, 15, 30 or 40 storeys high. That's the way to develop British Columbia. Is that the vision of the socialists on the other side of the House? I would strongly disagree with that, Mr. Chairman.

I am — and always have been — probably one of the strongest supporters of retaining agricultural land. In fact, I love agriculture. I'm part of it, and I wouldn't want to see any agricultural land taken away from agriculture unnecessarily.

MR. SIHOTA: Like Terra Nova.

MR. DE JONG: Let's talk a little bit about Terra Nova, even though I'm not totally familiar with all the details as to what's gone on before. Let's look at Richmond as I see it, as a visitor coming to Richmond from time to time.

Richmond is not a community of rich people. It's a community of ordinary people who have jobs in Vancouver or in the surrounding area. Richmond is a community of what I see as affordable housing. We all know that there are more and more jobs coming to Richmond and the surrounding communities because of the industries located there. We have invited the industries to be there; hence we need people to work there.

Why would we want to ask them all to live 50 miles down the valley and travel to Vancouver, which only clogs up the freeways, causes accidents and isn't a good type of living? Again, if you do move 50 miles up the valley, what are you up against? You're up against exactly the same thing: if any community wants to expand, you have to take agricultural land to do it.

I think it's a very sensible move on the part of ELUC, and I think the member for Richmond has very adequately expressed the mandate of ELUC and the Land Commission

[ Page 4893 ]

itself. They look at one type of thing — agriculture and agricultural viability — while ELUC looks at it from a broader perspective, taking into consideration your request for more affordable housing for the working man.

That concern is also on this side of the House. Let's not underestimate that. There is much more to it than what you guys are trying to bring out on the other side about instant millionaires because of agricultural land being taken out of the land reserve. I think it's a very degrading thing to bring up in the House like this when we are discussing such a sensitive issue.

I do have a few questions for the Minister of Agriculture pertaining to the milk industry, and particularly the five dissident shippers. Having been in the industry for some years myself, I know that each year we were sent a licence to ship from the dairy branch, and I assume that is still the case. My question really is: on what basis is such a licence granted?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The licence to ship milk — and we relate basically to a licence for fluid milk production — has to go through the dairy branch, as the hon. member correctly addresses, but has to meet several criteria relative to health and the facilities that are provided, etc. They must meet all the building standards and health requirements under the Milk Industry Act.

MR. DE JONG: Have these five dissident shippers had a regular inspection of the premises since we went back into the national system?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe, hon. member, that our dairy inspector was in the area last Thursday or Friday, inspecting two of those farms. I think there are only two others. The one that my critic reported on — the barn did burn down, and it is not operating. As far as I understand, the dairy inspector was out to two farms last Thursday or Friday.

MR. DE JONG: A further question. On the basis of these farmers being illegal under the act, they do not have a licence to ship as it applies to their quota, because they haven't got a fluid quota. Why would the ministry still inspect these farms as late as last week?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The inspection, as I understand it — I could get more information for the hon. member — is to see if the licences were still valid that were issued in the first place. If they weren't, they were to be taken from the buildings, because as you correctly say, they do not have a marketing licence. As I stated earlier, there is nothing that prevents them from producing milk. What we can prevent them from is marketing it. Once it comes into the marketing system, then you are into the public's use of the milk. That's when we can do something about it. But the production — whether you are feeding hogs, as I stated earlier, or you may well be feeding veal — does not require a milk industry licence.

MR. DE JONG: I understand, though, that if you feed your milk only to animals you do not need inspection whatsoever.

Could the minister perhaps outline to us here in the House what is required to obtain a cottage licence?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To obtain a cottage licence the applicant must file the application form with the Milk Board first. But again, they must meet the health standards for production, etc. It can only be applied for on the basis that the cottage industry is in operation on that farm and that production is from that farm. That's the only way you can get a cottage industry licence granted.

MR. DE JONG: What would be the requirement to obtain a cottage licence if the premises are suitable? What kind of product must be produced on such farms in order to obtain a cottage industry licence'

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The applicant would have to apply for a federal MSQ if he's an industrial cottage.... If he's in fluid milk, he'd obviously have to have a fluid quota or licence. If it's a cottage industry, they cannot produce it without the MSQ to go along with it.

MR. DE JONG: In the case of the four shippers, are there any applications to start a cottage industry on any of those farms?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As far as I understand it, there is one application in.

MR. DE JONG: Is it perhaps intended that the other four farmers are going to be shipping through the applicant that is now making the application for a cottage industry licence? As you said before, Mr. Minister, they do not have the right to a cottage industry unless they have a market share quota.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not aware at this stage of whether the other three operations involved are actually part of the application process for the cottage industry licence.

MR. DE JONG: How then does a farmer obtain a cottage industry licence if he hasn't got a fluid milk quota? I understand that in order to have MSQ you need a fluid milk quota.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't have the Milk Industry Act in front of me, but as I understand it, you can be granted a cottage industry licence without the fluid quota. If there's enough MSQ in the pool you can grant an MSQ allocation for a cottage industry licence, but you can only produce industrial product, not fluid.

MR. DE JONG: To a degree, I still have difficulty understanding the system. However, the minister is now talking about an MSQ pool. I would like to know what kind of pool is available. The farmers have been clamouring for more MSQ for some time. If there is a pool available, why isn't this being made available to existing shippers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Not too long ago the federal MSQ did provide some more MSQ for the province which was, in fact, given to all the shippers. It wasn't put in a pool. The pool that's in place accumulated there for quite some time — before I was minister — and was allocated out to, I believe, three or four applicants who had submitted to have a cottage industry. As I understand it. no MSQ is presently available for starting a cottage industry; it's all been used. But the latest allocation by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee was given to all existing producers.

[11:45]

[ Page 4894 ]

MR. DE JONG: Would it be a fair assumption, Mr. Minister, that in spite of all the court costs and the courts that have dealt with the situation of these four or five farmers.... The report of the former Minister of Agriculture, Cyril Shelford, time and again stated that these people have been treated more than fairly. Are these people, who have been outside the regulations, who have not been within the law, now going to be accommodated through this "cottage industry" allocation for which no MSQ is required, no fluid quota? There is a pool that no other dairy farmer in the industry, whether he had a hard time or a good time, had access to, and now it's available for the dissident shippers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can assure the member that, as I understand it, no MSQ is available. They do not, as you state, have to have both fluid and MSQ. If there was a pool available, there was what I'm saying previously to when I was the minister.... The way the allocation process is dealt with today, there is not any MSQ available. All MSQ has been given to existing producers. I don't see how the four or the three, adding to the one who's made the application, would have an opportunity to start a cottage industry, because there's no MSQ. They cannot produce cottage industry product without the MSQ to do so.

MR. DE JONG: I'm not going to belabour this any longer; however, I would like to state that many other farmers have made substantial sacrifices in terms of selling some of their cattle and other measures to get lesser production to stay within the guidelines, which are financial sacrifices on their part, and I would hate to see any one of these dissident shippers being given any privilege over any of the other shippers. I trust that the minister will deal with it in that way.

I do have a short question on another subject. It deals with the grant that is being made annually to the SPCA in the amount of about $40,000. I also know that the SPCA was always considered a non-profit association. However they have gone into contracting with about 26 or 28 regional districts and municipalities on the basis of bids against the private entrepreneur, which in my opinion puts them into the private entrepreneur section. Is the minister continuing or planning to continue this year making that grant to the SPCA in the amount of $40,000?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, we are, to answer that last question. We have the $40,000 in our budget for that.

On the other point you made about any special agreement with those five producers, let me assure you that as far as I'm concerned, as the minister responsible, they will have to comply with the Milk Industry Act.

MR. ROSE: You're not going to change the act, are you? That would be one way out of it. The minister nodded, although a nod can seldom be recorded in Hansard even in this modem electronic age.

I didn't intend to speak any more, and that, I'm sure, will engender, if not relief, a loud round of applause. However, I notice the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is sitting there anxiously awaiting his turn. As far as I'm concerned, if the Chairman doesn't see the clock for a minute or two to accommodate him, I'll try to be through mine in five, and he can have the other five. How's that for fairness? We do want to rise and report some progress soon, I hope.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, you want resolution? Okay, you can have resolution.

This just came to my attention. The minister knows about this because of his meeting on Saturday with the Egg Marketing Board. They feel under a tremendous threat over the free trade issue. I want the minister to tell the House what he knows about it. According to my information, the problem is that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the B.C. Egg Marketing Board will be declared "public entities" by the Americans under the free trade agreement.

We've all been worried about the effect on national and provincial marketing boards of the free trade agreement. This may be the first salvo as a result of political pressure applied by the Reagan administration in an election year. It may be only a power play; we don't know that. The Mulroney government is suggesting that the free trade agreement does not apply to the CEMA, but we don't know.

What are the consequences? A 15 percent cut in B.C. production because a surplus removal program will be illegal. The surplus removal program will henceforth be illegal. Surplus eggs are currently sold in the U.S. at a reference price which is less than the cost of production, or they're dumped in there. Three million chickens in B.C. will be slaughtered as a result of this projected cutback in quota.

What's the minister going to do? Has he contacted his federal counterpart, Mr. Wise? The U.S. administration has already introduced administrative guidelines which make it very clear that egg surplus removal is caught by the free trade agreement. What commitments...? Has the minister decided to make a formal, on-the-record statement that CEMA is not a public entity for the purpose of free trade? Has the minister been in touch with the minister in charge of free trade, Mr. Crosbie? Has the minister been in touch with External Affairs on this issue?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my opposition critic, we are still working at staff level, and I would hope to be responding this afternoon to all the organizations you report to and I will be demanding an answer from. It's a very important issue: whether a marketing agency or board can in fact be declared a person or a public entity. That's the key issue we're raising with Ottawa. If that's the case, your assumption is right, as you also said.

I had the opportunity on Saturday to meet with two people from the Egg Marketing Board and with the producers. They were very concerned that if the ruling comes in that it is a public entity.... As you say, there could be three million chickens that have to be gassed or put on the marketplace. Yes, we are working on that today. We have to have a response from Ottawa on that as to the legal interpretation. We want a legal interpretation as to whether that could be challenged by the United States under the free trade agreement.

MR. ROSE: First it's wine and then it's chickens. What's next? Who knows?

I'd just like to ask the minister whether he intends to make a ministerial statement in the House. How does he intend to respond to this?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I may well choose to do that, hon. member, but I won't make any comment until I've discussed it fully with my staff.

MR. RABBITT: I think I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to stand in this House and recognize the efforts

[ Page 4895 ]

made by the Minister of Agriculture to address a problem in my riding that came about because of Mother Nature: the drought. I appreciate the program that was brought forward. and also the assigning of a specific liaison person to deal with site-specifics with the ranchers on particular problems. I want to commend you on that.

I do have another question, but I was incited by the remarks made by a couple of the members from the east block. Before I get to that question, I'd like to mention that in the discussion of the Agricultural Land Commission, I think it should have been pointed out that there is a difference between the mandate of the commission and the mandate of ELUC. The mandate of the commission is quite simply to protect farmland, period. The ELUC mandate is greater; that is, the interest of all British Columbia — and I underline all."

There was great reference made to profits. That isn't really a dirty word, unless it comes out of the other corner there. I can remember back in 1972 when this was brought about by your government of the day. When that freeze was brought in, the record will show that none of those little farmers and none of those holders of land that got put in the freeze got compensated one red cent.

MR. ROSE: Farm income insurance.

MR. RABBITT: No, it was expropriated. That right to develop was taken away, and not one cent was compensated. I can say that I was a young enough person that I could recover, but there were many people on the verge of retirement who did not have that opportunity. I want the record to show that.

I would just like to wrap up by saying that the other comment by the hon. member on how to address a problem when we want to appeal a Land Commission decision.... Let me tell you. I know personally that in 1972 you went to an NDP cabinet minister. That's how you had an appeal; that's how you had it changed. I can prove it, because I had it done. But you know, the inference is that that was wrong. I don't think it was wrong then, and I don't think it's wrong now, to go to ELUC and ask for an appeal. I think that the whole inference that ELUC is an overriding, overpowering body that is going against the best interests of the province is absolutely wrong. I wanted to just make that point abundantly clear.

The one question I would like to ask, being that we're right out of time here, Mr. Minister, is: with free trade on the horizon, I want to know if your ministry is doing a study to see what the effects of free trade will be on our agricultural land reserves and whether we're going to have to make changes in the future in how we preserve or do not preserve farmland.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the question. We have looked at each — not so much by the agricultural land itself but what the impact has been on the commodity. The base of the commodity may change. It doesn't necessarily have to stay in the particular land resource or land area, but it could, to detail an answer — I couldn't do it for you right here now.... It would have an impact on some of the lands. without doubt, if in the free trade agreement we had to take away 2,000 acres of grapes, for instance. But I don't accept that as what has to happen. I believe we have an opportunity, for example, in grapes to get into the high-quality hybrids and the viniferous that we have captured the marketplace on. As a couple of wineries will tell you, they are premium wines and they have the opportunity to survive. As a producer, I would be the last guy to throw up my hands. I'd look at other alternatives, and that's what society as a whole has to take a look at.

It's a real plus for our beef producers in the beef industry, which you are so familiar with, hon. member, and so it is for our grain producers. We can ship an awful lot of wheat south of the border until we get that $3.13 equalized, as compared to the 83 cents that we have here, so there is a substantial difference. There is a real positive benefit to those two sectors.

Vote 9 approved.

Vote 10: ministry operations, $62,003,466 — approved.

Vote 11: Milk Board, $354,110 — approved.

Vote 12: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,303,413 — approved.

Vote 13: agrifood regional development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $7,300,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 51: minister's office, $280,605.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.