[ Page 7177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7177

Game Farm Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7178

Private Members' Statements

Freedom of speech of visiting students in Canada. Mr. Perry –– 7178

Mr. R. Fraser

Tourism in the Mackenzie riding. Mr. Long –– 7180

Ms. Pullinger

Land use planning. Ms. Edwards –– 7182

Hon. Mr. Dirks

International Woodworkers of America. Mr. Bruce –– 7184

Mr. Gabelmann

Ministerial Statement

National Transportation Week. Hon. Mr. Vant –– 7186

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7186

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ministerial Statement

Supreme Court decision on electoral redistribution deadline.

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7194

Mr. Rose

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7195

Mr. Blencoe –– 7196

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7196

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 21). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7196

Mr. Blencoe –– 7196

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7197

FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1989

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, 1,527 days from today we will open the 1993 Canada Summer Games in Kamloops. In our precincts are a number of the members of the committee who worked very hard under the leadership of Mr. Vic Poleschuk to secure those games on behalf of the community of Kamloops. In introducing them and in asking the House to welcome them to our area, I want to say that they congratulate the outstanding efforts that were made by the four other committees and the four other communities around British Columbia which also sought to have these games and to represent Canada in British Columbia in 1993. They would ask me to invite all British Columbians from all communities to come to Kamloops in 1993 to celebrate this great event. Would you join me in making them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, as a representative from what can fairly be described as the also-ran community — I believe that the community of Nanaimo was clearly second in that particular race for the games — I would like to join the member opposite in congratulating the citizens of Kamloops on the fine job they did in making representation and being awarded the games. I want to say that the people of my community certainly congratulate you and encourage you in that. All of us in B.C., I am sure, hope that the games are a marvellous success, and we'll certainly do our part to help make that happen.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are a couple from the city of Penticton, Dr. Mac Barry and his wife Joan, along with their daughter Barbara, who works and lives here in Victoria. Dr. Barry has been active in the medical profession in our city for many years, and he has also donated many hours of his time to assist crippled and burned children. Dr. Barry is the past potentate of the Shriner club of British Columbia. Would the members please welcome them.

MR. PERRY: It's usually typical to introduce visitors from one's own constituency, but I have the very unusual honour and privilege this morning to introduce a neighbour from my flat in Victoria. Stacey Shaben is a student at the University of Victoria who's here. I'd like to welcome her to the House.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to make a correction to the statement that the member for Nanaimo made that they were in second place. That was not correct. I think the Abbotsford-Matsqui area was actually in first place; then they dropped to second. But we're good losers, and we want to congratulate Kamloops on the bid. We know that they will put on a very good Summer Games, and certainly we wish them well. I want to also say on behalf of my community: they did put in a good effort, and they made a good proposal. Only one could win; Kamloops was chosen. So be it.

I would also like to introduce some people from my constituency on behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself. We have with us today graduating students from the Abbotsford Christian Academy. They are ten grade 12 students accompanied by their teacher Mr. Blair McHenry. This trip is a graduation present to the students. After visiting the House, they will be going to the Butchart Gardens and the provincial museum and staying overnight at the Olde England Inn. They will be leaving Saturday afternoon for home for the lovely area of Central Fraser Valley. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: As I'm sure most members in the House are aware, the Municipal Officers' Association held their fiftieth conference in Victoria this past week. Visiting from the great constituency of Okanagan South, we have the administrator of the Regional District of Central Okanagan, Mr. Al Harrison, and his wife Dolores. On behalf of my colleague the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask that you make them all welcome.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome two visitors to the city, Dr. and Mrs. McLeish, from the beautiful and stately city of Melbourne, Australia, who are visiting Canada for the first time. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and myself, I too want to congratulate the city of Kamloops on its very successful bid to host the 1993 Canada Summer Games on behalf of the province of British Columbia. As with so many things, there can really be only one winner. It is with a certain amount of envy, I suppose, that our municipality notes this, but at the same time, we want to congratulate you and assure you of our support in your efforts. We know and recognize that you have drawn on a tremendous amount of volunteer enthusiasm in your community. You were able to gather some 7,000 residents, I was told, in the arena there one evening in support of the bid, and 4,000 last night. Certainly that kind of participation by the citizens of Kamloops bodes well for an absolutely outstanding, successful 1993 Summer Games. Congratulations.

Introduction of Bills

AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agriculture Protection Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The purpose of this bill is to discourage people from using the courts to stop

[ Page 7178 ]

activities that create noise and smell when farmers are operating their farms in the agricultural land reserve, carrying out their operations in a reasonable manner or in accordance with accepted farming practices and complying with all enactments and permits relating to the operation causing the nuisance.

The legislation will not allow a person to obtain injunctive relief, either interim or permanent, to stop the farm operation or to obtain an award for damages against the farmer if the farmer is eligible for the benefit of this legislation. It is important to note that the bill does not safeguard the farmer in the event of negligence or unreasonable use of his land. The proposed legislation will not alter the bylaw-making powers of local government.

[10:15]

The rationale for the legislation is that intensive farming requires very significant investments of capital: an average, I should probably note, of about half a million dollars. Current capital investment in agriculture in this province is approximately $6.5 billion The value of production by the farm sector exceeds $1.1 billion, and it's important to recognize the impact of agriculture on the economy of B.C. It makes sound economic sense for the province to protect the farm sector and to facilitate its continued growth and development.

It is expected that this legislation will encourage good farm practice throughout the province, provide confidence and stability in the farm sector and enable growth, development and modernization of the industry. For this legislation to provide a benefit to farmers, they must comply with all laws relevant to farm operations. This ensures that public interests and individual rights are protected. On balance, private individuals may have to withstand some nuisance.

Bill 30 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.

GAME FARM ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Game Farm Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The purpose of this legislation is to develop a framework that enables the ministry to license game farmers and to administer game farming, ensuring that there is promotion of a developing industry; recognition of the interests of consumers; control over game farms through recordkeeping requirements; protection of environmentally sensitive regions of the province by providing the ability to exclude farming from them; and protection of wild stock from adverse effects of game farming by: (1) controlling disease; (2) providing that the escapement of farm game is minimized and animal control programs are put in place; and (3) restricting game species to particular regions of the province.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment will sign a protocol agreement to recognize the ongoing consultation and cooperation between our ministries, to address the protection of environmentally sensitive areas of the province from the potential impact of game farming, and the protection of wildlife, especially from disease. When regulations are developed to protect the environment and wild stock, this will be done in consultation with the Ministry of Environment. Non-endemic species — bison and fallow deer, and reindeer in the Peace River region — will be farmed.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries currently administers game farming, although permitting authority under the Wildlife Act is delegated by the Ministry of Environment. The process is complex and implies that game farming is still controlled by the Ministry of Environment. The permit system does not address industry promotion, the development of good animal husbandry and protection and education of the consuming public. The licensing framework and the amendments to other agriculture legislation are needed to address these concerns.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will allow the minister to license all game farmers, promote good animal husbandry practices among game farmers, encourage growth of the industry, prevent harm to wild stocks and minimize any environmental impacts.

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.

Private Members' Statements

FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF
VISITING STUDENTS IN CANADA

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, something very momentous is happening in China. Little do we know exactly what it portends, but the entire world's attention is riveted on Tiananmen Square.

This is hardly the first time China has so captivated our attention. Centuries ago Europeans looked to the east not only for exotic silks and spices but for wisdom and scientific prowess. It was Napoleon who predicted: "There lies a sleeping giant. When it wakes, it will shake the world."

Often before in this century, China has stirred the western imagination and conscience. Few countries have fought so hard for the initial steps of democratization as did China in the first years of this century, which led to the presidency of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Few people suffered so much during World War II as did the Chinese during the Japanese occupation, and seldom in human history has any event so shaken the world as did the revolution of 1949.

Canada, since its first years of nationhood, has enjoyed a special relationship with China. At first the flow of people and ideas was mostly one-way. From China came the labourers who did most of the back-breaking work to build the Canadian Pacific

[ Page 7179 ]

Railway in B.C. — so too some of our first merchants and market gardeners. Later we Canadians began a distinguished tradition of missionary and medical service in China, through the work of people like nurse Jean McEwen, Dr. Norman Bethune and Dr. Robert McClure.

After the revolution we persistently withstood strong United States pressure to boycott the Chinese, and we prospered by our trading relationship. In 1970 we helped lead the movement at the United Nations to finally accord to China the international recognition and status it so clearly deserved.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly surprising that Canadians are excited and encouraged by recent developments in China which seem to herald the development of a more democratic society whose ordinary citizens will enjoy more of the freedoms and privileges we usually take for granted. To see students and working people debating the great issues of the day in public has stirred a profound chord of sympathy, or rather empathy, among millions of Canadians. I think empathy is really the right word, because who among us has not imagined himself or herself along with the students and the ordinary people in that great square which symbolizes the modern Chinese nation? What politician has not pondered how he or she would deal with the enormous challenges facing the Chinese government as it grapples with the problems of one billion people, and what Canadian does not wish for the Chinese people that same ultimate goal for which we all strive according to our own lights: the full development of the potential of each human being and the realization of a society which facilitates this for all its members?

In this century China has emerged from grinding poverty, illiteracy, epidemic disease and domination from abroad. Now we acknowledge China not only as the inheritor of a proud and ancient culture but often as a world leader in health, education and, increasingly, science and technology.

Far be it from us to prescribe to any nation, great or small, how to develop its society or govern its citizens. But it is natural and totally appropriate that we Canadians should wish for the Chinese people, if they so wish them for themselves, those same rights to freedom of speech, association, religion and security of person that our society has recognized for hundreds of years, and which the world as a whole accepted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the founding of the United Nations.

Those rights were not easily won by our society Indeed, we continue to fight for them, and we maintain them only by their constant exercise.

The greatest achievements of the human spirit, be it the age-old struggle for self-expression of the Jews, celebrated each year at Passover; be it the slave rebellions in ancient Rome or in nineteenth-century America; be it the Enlightenment in Europe; be it the revolutions in France, the United States, Mexico, South America or Russia: all have been inspired and ultimately won by the synthesis of courageous and creative leadership with the genuine and legitimate aspirations of ordinary people.

We have seen that democratization seems to be an inevitable and insuppressible tendency of human society. We have seen it recently in the Philippines, in the Soviet Union and Poland, and now in China. In all of these movements students and scholars have played an important part. I think that is why Canadians are so enthralled by the developments in Beijing and elsewhere in China. No wonder that Chinese students studying in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, have expressed their solidarity with compatriots and colleagues back home.

Some may feel that such demonstrations are improper for visitors in our country. Some may see this as interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation, be it our own or the People's Republic of China. I think that is preposterous. I well remember my own ceremony of Canadian citizenship on January 9, 1970. Justice Norman Oreck told me and all the other new Canadians in his courtroom that day that we should preserve what was best of our cultures and contribute our ideas and our criticisms, as well as our praise, to our new country. Justice Oreck was speaking for Canada that day. I think he and the vast majority of Canadians feel the same way about visitors to our country. We have as much to learn from them as they from us, and we prosper as a society when they exercise freedom of speech, just as we would do ourselves.

I hope we will never see the day when visitors to Canada are not welcome to state their views publicly, so long as they respect the norms of free speech accepted by Canadians. That is why so many Canadians are offended at the remarks by one member of this assembly suggesting or implying that Chinese students resident in Canada should not express their views on one of the greatest issues of our time. That is why I think we should expect an apology from the member on behalf of this House. Let me attempt to set the record straight: this House stands for the fullest possible freedom of expression, which is the absolute foundation of our democracy.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted that I have a chance to respond. Normally backbenchers don't get this chance, but today I do, and I'm very grateful.

I was interested in listening to what the member said. In fact, I suspect that most of us would agree with almost everything he said. There's no question that sovereignty is important to us all, that China is a great country and that the contribution the Chinese have made to Canada is significant; indeed, as significant as any of those who have come to Canada. We welcome them all, including the students.

But that is not the issue about which I spoke. What I said is simply that as a democratic nation, we respect the rights of other countries to choose their system of government, as we expect them to respect ours. That means that as Canadians we expect others to stay out of our internal affairs, as we would stay out of theirs. We as Canadians, if we wish to get

[ Page 7180 ]

involved, do so to the possible embarrassment of our government.

I am certain that as Canadians, if we had learned during the Quebec crisis that disenchanted Canadians were living elsewhere and being supported by another country, we would expect that country to have adopted the views of those disenchanted Canadians. So it's very important for all of us, wherever we go, to accept the dictates of common courtesy, to accept the privileges and rights of a country that we get when we go there, but not to become involved in a political discussion from here in some other land that might be your homeland.

If you don't understand that, it simply means this: Canada should not be seen to be, and should not be, a sanctuary for those who would get involved in politics in their own country. If they wish to do that, that's where they should go.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Of course you don't understand, Mr. Member; I don't expect you to.

Obviously freedom of speech is important, and I endorse that. What we talked about was the activities of those who become involved in activities in their own country from here. None of us appreciates that, none of us expects it, and I would be amazed if every one of you didn't agree with that. Visitors are welcome any time, freedom of speech on any subject in this country other than....

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: That's what I said: visitors, guests, businessmen and students are welcome in this country; expressions of opinion, of course, are welcome. We have done that consistently for years, and I suspect we will continue to do that.

[10:30]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, at a reception at the university last night I discussed this matter with a number of colleagues. I expressed the view that I didn't think that the member opposite had really understood what he was saying, but that I didn't understand why he had repeated it outside the House several times. My colleague suggested that maybe even after repeating it several times he didn't understand what he was saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: He speaks for the government today, too. They chose him.

MR. PERRY: I am concerned that he speaks for the government, since he has given the official response to my statement. I think that is totally unacceptable.

I want to reiterate on behalf of the members on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party that we welcome the participation of visitors to this country in our democracy, be they refugees, students or any other visitor — visiting speakers. We have a long tradition of that. It comes from our bicultural founding heritage from Britain and France. It's well established in the traditions of both of those countries. I call upon the government, upon those cabinet members sitting opposite, to ensure that the government issues a statement today to undo the damage which has been done by the statements of its member.

TOURISM IN THE MACKENZIE RIDING

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on tourism in the Mackenzie riding.

Interjections.

MR. LONG: I'm being heckled by my own people.

I'd like to tell some of the people in the galleries and in this House that if they haven't been to the Mackenzie riding, which starts at Port Mellon — there's a ferry from Horseshoe Bay over to the Gibsons area, Port Mellon, Sechelt, on up to Pender Harbour, Powell River and then north as far as Bella Coola and Bella Bella — then they're really missing something. The whole area of Mackenzie is probably one of the most pristine places in all of British Columbia. Most of the wilderness is untouched today. I think that when the tourists come to our area, that is what they see.

In Gibsons we also have the production of "The Beachcombers," which is shown around the world now. It has shown the beaches, the clean water and the fishing that goes on up that way — and of course on to Sechelt, which basically has the same philosophy: that fishing is a major thing and the beauty of the area.

MR. WILLIAMS: Woodfibre, Port Mellon.

MR. LONG: Absolutely. Woodfibre and Port Mellon are very important, because they supply the jobs for the people to live there. Maybe the member from Vancouver doesn't realize people need jobs. I'll get to the people of Vancouver in a moment. It's time he understood that people need jobs.

We'll get on to Pender Harbour where the fishing is fantastic. The member probably fishes at Pender Harbour, but he doesn't want to let on. He takes them back to Vancouver and eats them.

MR. BRUCE: How big are the fish?

MR. LONG: They're so big the negatives of the picture weigh two and a half pounds.

We have some of the best lakes, some of the best water and some of the best fishing. By far some of the greatest people in all of British Columbia live in the Mackenzie riding. It's all the way up the coast; it's such a big riding.

I've got to jump from place to place; I'm on a time restriction here.

We get into Powell River, we get into Lund — a small community at the end of the highway — and then of course, on up to and including Texada Island. On the way up the coast at Lund, the highway ends.

[ Page 7181 ]

From there to Bella Coola it's wide open wilderness; the ferries go up from Vancouver Island through to Bella Coola, Bella Bella and that area. It's just absolutely beautiful country.

We have such clean water, we have such clean beaches, we have such clean air, that we want to keep them that way. How are we going to keep them that way? We're going to keep them that way by putting in a pipeline through to Vancouver Island to make this one of the cleanest places in British Columbia. We're going to stop the burning of the heavy oils and the woods and the things that pollute our air, to keep those beaches beautiful for those people in the lower mainland who want to come to our riding to catch our fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the pipeline?

MR. LONG: This is the pipeline — the Vancouver Island pipeline. It's necessary. These are the people that want to come up and enjoy it, and we need your help. I'm glad to see that the minister and the mayors have agreed to put in a commissioner with unbiased opinions to come along and tell them which is the best way and to work with them. I really commend what the minister has done with the mayors. I think it's great. I think they'll come to a solution, and they'll say: "This is the best for the province. This is the best for the people of the riding. This is the best for the people of Vancouver in the long run."

In closing, I want....

Interjection.

MR. LONG: That's where we have a problem. The NDP will not stand up on Vancouver Island and say: "We endorse this project. We want clean air. We want clean water. We want to bring people to Vancouver Island. We want to bring them to the Sunshine Coast." We need the support of the opposition, and we don't seem to be getting it. I'm looking forward to this group in this corner of the House coming forward in great strides and helping us make this a reality.

MS. PULLINGER: As my party's tourism spokesperson, I'm delighted to hear the member for Mackenzie talking about tourism and the advantages of it I also note that he's concerned that the people who haven't come to Mackenzie are really missing something. There's no doubt that that's true.

However, I would like to point out that when we were government, we had the ferry that runs from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert stop at Ocean Falls. With some very small ferries and some short roads, we could have had two circle tours from the north and the south part that would have benefited the whole area and allowed a lot of people to come and see that region. However, this government chose to discontinue that, to cut off this service....

MR. WILLIAMS: They killed Ocean Falls.

MS. PULLINGER: That's quite right. A lot of people can't get in there to see it. That's too bad. By now we would have had 15 years of tourism built up in that area. Instead, we've seen it go downhill. There's no question that tourism is important. It's the second-largest industry in the province. It's growing, and it can in many ways be very positive for British Columbia.

It's an excellent tool for regional development, for instance. If this government had followed through what we started, we could have developed that whole central coast region. It's relatively pollution-free — a sustainable, renewable kind of industry. It also tends to be community-based. Places like Chemainus and Port Alberni are examples of what communities can do, how they can gather around tourism. It draws the community together. It puts the focus on local history, local culture and the natural resources of the area, and can therefore strengthen a community. It also tends to promote and encourage small business, which, as we know, creates eight out of ten new jobs. They tend to be locally owned and operated and keep money in the area. Those are all very positive aspects of tourism, and it is an excellent and growing industry.

I'd like to just caution that we ought not to get overenthusiastic or overzealous about it and ignore the very real problems that can occur in the tourism industry. It is not, I would offer, a replacement or a substitute for the economy that we have. It is, in fact, something that should be added to our economy and integrated with it. It ought not to replace our present industry, because of some of the problems I've mentioned. Although there are many jobs in tourism, the vast majority of them are minimum-wage, short-term, part-time jobs. It's something this government needs to address. We need to look at what that minimum wage is. Is it a livable wage? We need to address those issues. Tourism can indeed be the industry of the future, but we had best look to see carefully what that future will be.

The industry deserves support. It needs integrated, long-range, carefully considered support. What we're seeing is fragmentation of the ministry, which makes it difficult for small businesses to get the support they need. It needs carefully considered support. I'm not sure that combining advertising with McDonald's and our parks is carefully considered support. Those two images work against each other.

Wilderness tourism is one of the major attractions of British Columbia. We need to support it by encouraging a clean environment. We know that this government has an abysmal record in terms of caring for our environment in any meaningful way.

Certainly everyone on Vancouver Island would agree that we need a pipeline. We would support any alternative cleaner fuel. But we need to do more than that. The hon. member mentioned fishing. But who wants to fish for fish that glow? We need clean air. We need regulations and monitoring that mean something. Things like whale-watching are not great in an

[ Page 7182 ]

oil slick. You people need to spend some time to clean this up.

We want some leadership. We're not getting it from that side of the House. The leadership is coming from this side of the House in our sustainable development package. You folks say you're ready to follow. You just need to be advised what to do. We're ready to lead. Just watch!

MR. LONG: The hon. second member for Nanaimo brings some points forward that I'd like to make some comments on.

First, she mentioned the ferry to Ocean Falls. I don't know if this lady has been in Ocean Falls lately, but there are very few people, and the economics would be incredible. We also have the ferry that runs all the way up to Prince Rupert and ferries a lot of people back and forth. In the future there's another private concern that will be taking people into the wilderness area.

The thing that really puzzles me is the comment from the member for Vancouver East. At one moment the member for Nanaimo is saying we need the jobs and that we shut down Ocean Falls; but the member for Vancouver East, who just made a statement about the pulp mills on the lower coast, doesn't want them. He makes comments about that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There's another point. She says "relatively pollution-free." My good Lord, there's why we need our pipeline. Relatively is not good enough — we've got to have pollution-free.

Going back to her comments, I want to tell you what it's about here. Back when the NDP were in power, they had a Highways minister called Graham Lea. Now this is the way they look at tourism. He told the people in the U.S. to go home because they were making potholes in our roads.

MR. BRUCE: What was his name?

MR. LONG: Graham Lea, the minister.

The member asked what tourism will do for us. I think it's very simple: prosperity and jobs. Those are the things that we need. The last thing I want to hear from the members in this corner of the House is the statement that the member for Nanaimo made when she said: "You people must clean this up." We're asking for your help. Stand up and testify. Let us know. Help us with the pipeline. Let's get our environment cleaned up. We're looking to you for some help. We will do the rest.

[10:45]

LAND USE PLANNING

MS. EDWARDS: I've chosen a topic today that of course is everybody's positive topic. Everybody says that land use planning is a good thing. Everybody says that if we're going to have multiple use we must have land use planning. Everybody says there is a need to plan. Everybody says we must look ahead.

We've been talking about something very concrete coming out of that in my area for the last 20 years. We've been talking about having a provincial land use plan. I don't know why we've been talking about it in my area for that long — perhaps longer than in some other areas. It may be because of the extreme resource conflict that happens in the Kootenays. It may be because in our area we have a larger percentage of Crown land being used for various economic initiatives. But for whatever reasons, we've been talking about it. We've been demanding it. We've been saying this province needs a land use plan. We've had all the examples indicating that that's the case. The government has said they support multiple use and land use planning. The government says that's a very good idea. But do we have a provincial land use plan? No, we don't, and the kinds of problems this situation creates are fairly extreme.

We do not have the integration of planning that we need. One ministry really predominates in land use planning in this province, and because of the way things are going, that may not be appropriate. It isn't appropriate in any case, Mr. Speaker. We have situations that demonstrate what's going on. For example, I've spoken to three people in the last three days who, by coincidence, mentioned that wildlife biologists don't manage wildlife in this province; what they manage is what's left of the wildlife that can survive on the habitat managed by somebody else.

HON. MR. PARKER: There are more pheasant and more deer in your area now than ever before.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the Minister of Forests wants to say something about the magnificent management of what's left of the wildlife after the Ministry of Forests has set up what it wants to do with the habitat. But they have the priority....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member speak. Either refrain from these peripheral conversations or absent yourself, please.

MS. EDWARDS: Another example of what goes on is what happened with the tree-farm licence proposals that the minister took out to the rest of the province. When the minister went to hear what was happening about tree-farm licences and to talk about what the minister is most interested in, which is management for lumber extraction and fibre use, he found that people, as he put it, were not talking on the issue, because when you talk about long-term tenure you should, he said, be talking about the trees as we extract them for logging. He said other things were considered, but he was amazed that everybody else in the province seemed to bring up other areas of management that had not been considered when he put forward his proposal on tree-farm licences.

What it indicates is that the Ministry of Forests is right upfront doing the management and people from

[ Page 7183 ]

the other ministries are cast in the role of begging for attention under the few rules we have for land use management. This is largely because we do not have an adequate inventory. If, in fact, this government were serious about setting up a land use plan, they would probably do what anybody else does when they begin planning. They say: "What do we have to plan?" Then they get an inventory and take a look at what's there. We don't have inventories of even the trees, let alone the forests, that are adequate to do the kind of planning people are demanding.

HON. MR. PARKER: Wrong.

MS. EDWARDS: We don't have adequate inventory of the fish or the wildlife. We have some kind of wilderness inventory that's been done by community groups. We don't even have the standards by which we can determine what our range is; a study that was done for range inventory has never been implemented. In parks and agriculture we have some inventory, but we also have arguments consistently and continually about the boundaries on that.

The comments I make today were initiated in part by a letter written by a constituent, a member of the East Kootenay Hunters' Association, to the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He says to the minister: "The item, however, that was conspicuously absent from your budget outline was provision for a proper inventory to be done on...." Obviously a hunters' association wants an inventory on wildlife, especially in a high-user area like the East Kootenay. "Annually, regional biologists are summoned to set out hunting seasons with inadequate information about wildlife numbers due to budget shortfalls. This practice ultimately leads to ultraconservative management strategies and the potential for severe losses on ranges where overgrazing may be occurring." Then he points out that even the smallest businesses do not operate without an accurate inventory, and that when one considers the revenue generated by our wildlife, we need the inventory to be able to manage it for the people of the province.

That's only one example; in fact, the calls for a reasonable inventory come regularly — particular activities that we try to do. They came, as I said, when we tried to discuss tree-farm licences and the kind of tenure the forest industry should have. In our past experience we have found that miscalculation of our inventory has not allowed us to do as effective sustained yield planning as we wanted to do; we discovered that the trees weren't there which the figures had said were there.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm rather amused by all this, and I'd like to use the phrase that was brought into this House by the opposition House Leader: this is the greatest display of mugwumpery I have ever seen.

Basically I hear the member for Kootenay saying that we need a proper inventory; we need something in order for land planning to take place. Well, in rising today she said that she's basing a lot of her statements on a letter that she received. I wonder if it is really the letter, or if she is simply feeling a little flush after being the chairman of a regional convention held in my constituency over the weekend where 67 delegates voted and adopted land use.

Here we have the member saying we need a proper inventory first of all. What was the land use that they adopted? I guess it caused a bit of a stir back there, because according to the headlines of the Castlegar News on Wednesday, May 31, the NDP argued about forests. What did they adopt? They adopted a resolution that said they would adopt this as the basis. This was the resolution that they were going to send in — not to the party convention, not where it could be debated openly, but really where it would go to the committee. This was on an emergency basis.

This is the British Columbia endangered wilderness map, where they set out 12 percent of this province for parks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is inappropriate for any member of the House to display any item in the House. Sorry, those are the rules, and they haven't been enforced recently. But while I'm in the Chair, I'll try to enforce them.

HON. MR. DIRKS: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote some of the misstatements in this that they are now using as their policy — like saying that at this time, B.C. does not have a park system which guarantees that any area will be preserved for future generations. Where have they been when this government said a park is a park?

Another nice little misstatement in here: "...nightmare landscapes of clearcuts are expanding into community watersheds, scenic corridors for major tourist traffic, and even into our parks. In the interior of British Columbia there's a clearcut 55 miles long by 55 miles wide." Balderdash! Shame! This is what they're adopting. This is what they're going to adopt. They don't even to want to adopt it in an open convention. They're going to hide this behind their little party executive, and that's the way it's going to come forward.

Now here's another little statement they make here, and I've been trying to get verification of this from that very same committee. They say: "Now some parks like Kokanee Glacier and the new South Moresby national park are riddled throughout with areas open to industrial use." Again I say balderdash. This is what you are adopting. This is what you did it on in Creston last week. It's just full of false statements, yet you need a proper inventory.

I would suggest that the way we do this is the way the government has committed to do it. The task force that has been set up under Dr. Strangway from UBC will recommend how we can get multiple use, and how we can make use of our resources in a very orderly fashion. I'd like to quote from another fellow who is well known in environmental circles, Mike Halleran, in his address to the forest forum of the

[ Page 7184 ]

north Cariboo community In Quesnel. He says: "When it comes to wilderness, the images are terribly distorted. I have saved that subject for the last. There are those who seem to believe that, except for designated parks and wilderness areas, all of B.C. will eventually be clearcut. This is a gigantic hoax." That's what Mike Halleran says.

That is precisely the stand that the people who drafted this map would take and would have the population believe. That's precisely the stand the NDP have adopted in this mini-convention that they had in my constituency. There is only one way to do this, and that is to do it rationally It is to take a good inventory of what we have. It is to sit down with rational heads and look at all possible uses of our natural resources.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely delightful for you to be able to see here today how we in the Kootenays work together. All it took was 67 voting members of the Kootenay group and 120-some more working together to say that we would start discussing wilderness based on the Valhalla wilderness map. Within a week we have the Minister of State for Kootenay discussing wilderness based on the Valhalla Wilderness Society map. Well, there seemed to be no indication from the people in his riding that he had looked at it before, and they had wanted him to.

I might say that there's more than one way to cook a turkey. We've got the minister looking at the map now. If the minister had any understanding of how our party works, he perhaps would have understood where this resolution is going, how it's going to the people of British Columbia right across the province and how it reflects the idea that we need land use planning, we need to talk together and make a plan to prevent the confrontations that are going on in British Columbia; and in order to do that planning adequately, we need inventories.

I would agree with the minister that you can't wait for all the inventories in order to do the planning but, for heaven's sake, let's start on the planning and the inventory. I think it's time that this government understood this. It's absolutely necessary, for any participation by the ordinary citizens of British Columbia, to have inventories, so that they know what they are talking about and what the figures are, so they can go ahead. If the minister were concerned, they would obviously have the absolutely accurate figures.

I commend the minister and I ask him to proceed on the basis of getting some inventories done, so that the next time we can all talk on the same basis again, based on the same maps and the same figures.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver East has approached the Chair and asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today is a visitor from Japan who, I am sure, is fascinated by the antics in this chamber. His name is Hiroshi Fugimoto, and accompanying him is a friend of his and my father-in-law, Frank Babish. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

[11:00]

INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA

MR. BRUCE: Today I'd like to speak about one of the great institutions in British Columbia, the International Woodworkers of America. The IWA, as we all know, has been a major player in the development of the economy in British Columbia, but it has also been a major player in my community, the great constituency of Cowichan-Malahat. One could say, if you were looking for a birthplace of the IWA in British Columbia, you might come to the conclusion that it was in Cowichan-Malahat.

The IWA has been a fighter for the rights of the lumberman and the logger, a fighter for higher wages and improved safety concerns and the like throughout the forestry industry. More recently, it has become a very strong fighter in respect to environmental concerns and forestry practices throughout this province. The IWA, as it has been throughout the province and in my community as well, has been very much an integral part and an integral player in the overall development of this province.

The history of the IWA — not that I have a definitive study of it.... As I understand it, it was created in 1937, after some difficulties through a number of other mergers and partners and differences with lumber-sector unions throughout North America. It didn't come easily, the bringing about of the IWA as we know it today. Back in 1936 there were attempts at unionization within the industry, and goodness knows it was very necessary. In those times, union organizers were run out of camps and people were not given the right to unionize. As a result, there was no standard for wages or working conditions. In the forestry sector, we've known for many years.... There have been some improvements to the safety and working conditions, most of them attributable to the efforts of the IWA.

It was in May 1936 in the Lake Cowichan area that a strike was used to try and enforce demands for a standard wage scale. They were looking for union recognition and union agreements, and were led by two camps from the Youbou area in my constituency. Although there was no union recognition at the time, a pay increase of 50 cents a day was won. I believe it was no small feat for the situation in 1936.

It was actually in 1940 that the IWA really started to find itself trying to rebuild. It had come into a fair amount of trouble. There had been an unsuccessful strike at Blubber Bay on Texada Island, and from that point they started rebuilding in British Columbia, initiated particularly in the communities of Chemainus and Lake Cowichan.

In 1946 they initiated the first provincewide strike, which lasted 37 days. I don't think that any of us are

[ Page 7185 ]

pleased with or look forward to strikes in any community, because they cause hardships on the community as a whole and on the membership of the union. But in those days there was a time and a need, and certainly the IWA filled that need and looked after the concerns and demands that people were working for. In that respect, although they did not win their total settlement, they increased their union membership from 10,000 to 27,000.

The IWA today — IWA-Canada, as it's known — has more than 50,000 members, as I understand it. And of course, the IWA has political affiliations — it's well known, in respect to their executives and the like — with the NDP. But I know full well that I wouldn't stand here today as the elected representative, the MLA, for Cowichan-Malahat if I had not had the support of many IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat. I appreciate and respect that support, not only in my political life but also in my business life. The union wages that have been won and paid have gone a long way to allowing my family the opportunity to develop and expand a small business, two little grocery stores that we have now.

You can't talk about the IWA unless you also talk about one of the leading figures in the political world today in the province of British Columbia, a chap called Jack Munro. Jack is an institution in his own right, and a very colourful figure when one looks at the history of this province.

He joined the IWA in 1959 and became a plant chairman in 1960. He was president of his local in 1968. He then became the regional vice-president — when we look at the IWA from a regional perspective, B.C. being one region — and then regional president in 1973. Now, of course, he is president of IWA-Canada, the International Woodworkers of America having split a little bit and formed the Canadian side.

Jack, I think, has done yeoman service for this province in dealing with the concerns within the forestry sector on behalf of his union membership It's no easy task, when one looks at the demands that are occurring within the workplace, the demands and the conflicts that a union leader would have to be dealing with in regard to technological change. The fact that there will be downsizing, through technological change, is contrary, in many instances, to what a union is there to protect: jobs. Many times, one has to take a larger and more global view of those technological changes and make sure that, in fighting for the moment, you don't lose sight of the bigger and broader picture of jobs for the future.

It's not an easy task, I'm sure, if one is the president of a union such as the IWA, to try and balance representing the concerns of one's membership and looking after the future concerns of that membership.

MR. GABELMANN: I should say at the outset that I'm pleased at the tone the member for Cowichan Malahat chose to adopt in discussing the IWA. I'd like to talk to him about a few things that I think some IWA members around this province would like to talk to him about. I'll get to that in a minute.

Let me say first of all that the member — and I don't denigrate him for this — stumbled a little bit with the history of the early years. That is not a criticism of the member but a criticism of the way British Columbia has chosen to ignore trade unions and trade unionism. We have chosen to ignore them in our school system. There is no labour studies program in our school system, yet I remember in grade 11 being able to take a course where we studied the stock market. It seems to me that if people growing up in this province had an opportunity to learn about the noble struggles of working people and their organizations, we would all be better off. It was a minor error, but we wouldn't then make mistakes such as calling them the International Woodworkers of America. As the member noted later in his comments, it is in fact IWA-Canada, and IWA doesn't stand for anything anymore in the sense of what those initials reflect. It is simply IWA-Canada. It is no longer the International Woodworkers of America. The union has no affiliation whatsoever with the American side.

The member, I suspect, is attempting to make a few comments so that he can do a mail-out to his IWA constituents in the hope that he might get re-elected in the next election. Fat chance, I should say, but that's probably what it's about. I trust the member will include in his mail-out the full 14 or 15 minutes of comments that are made, and make sure that IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat understand that government policy is reflected in one aspect of this discussion by a statement by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) in respect of Tsolum Timber Sales Ltd., which is a sawmill in the Courtenay area. The minister is quoted as saying: "It's a non-union outfit and non-union jobs are just as important as union jobs." I want the IWA members in Cowichan-Malahat who are going to get this mail-out from this member to know that as far as the government is concerned, non-union jobs in the forest sector are just as important as union jobs. I'd like IWA members to think about that.

I'd also like the member and his constituents to think about the vicious kind of game that is being played in British Columbia by the government and some of its supporters in attempting to create an artificial and phony war between people who are concerned about the environment and people who are concerned about their jobs. It's a phony war in which the government is trying to enlist the support — futilely, I might say — of working people in an attempt to create battles in British Columbia over resource development, over logging, when in fact it should be the government's initiative and its policy that there be every effort made to bring those groups together in this province, so that we can have policies and programs that protect both our environment and our jobs in this province. Yet the government is more concerned with creating wars between environmentalists and workers, between native Indians and workers, and in whatever way it can, creating warfare out there among our citizens. When the government stops that kind of activity, it will understand that it

[ Page 7186 ]

has taken the first step toward trying to get policies in this province that will enable us to resolve those resource conflicts and get on with the job of ensuring that more jobs are created in our forest and industrial sectors and more of our environment is protected. When we do all this, we will find that the greatest environmentalists in British Columbia are in fact working people. Some of the greatest environmentalists I know are members of the IWA clear cutting in northern Vancouver Island, in a very sensitive way. We need to bring those people together, not try to divide them — and that has clearly been the policy of the government over the years.

The issues go on, and I don't have time to talk about all of them, obviously, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to mail out to my constituents a statement such as this, or, if I did, to have the remarks edited. Certainly I would never do such a thing. But let it be said that as far and as long as I am the member for Cowichan-Malahat, not only will I look and work on behalf of my constituents as a whole, I will look and work on behalf of members of the IWA and of other unions and those who are not necessarily members of unions. I believe in the future of the province of British Columbia, and I believe it does require that all of us work together.

[11:15]

If you go back just a few years to 1983, when we had the enormous demonstrations and Solidarity on the, grounds of the parliament buildings, who was it that finally came together, that took the leadership necessary to bring things together so that we would have peace in the province at that time? It was Bill Bennett, the Premier of this province, and Jack Munro, the leader of the IWA. And where was the opposition at that time? Quiet and hiding. Were they interested in the well-being of this province and its future? Were they interested in what would happen to the economic well-being of this province, when today we have a balanced budget because of the action that was taken? Today we have money in the bank for those days in the future when we may be in desperate times.

Jack Munro — God bless him! — stood up at that time. He stood up and said: "Listen. This government has a plan. It may be a plan that those of us on one side are not totally prepared to accept, but anarchy will not reign. As the leader of the IWA, the organization that has the strongest and the biggest play in the B.C. Federation of Labour here in this province, I will go and deal with the Premier of this province, as he is the Premier of the province, whether I agree with his policy or not." And they worked out the Kelowna accord. Because of that statesmanship by both those individuals, Jack Munro and Bill Bennett, we were able to forge ahead in a new partnership in this province.

My learned and honourable colleague from North Island, there is a partnership in this province; there is a partnership in the labour movement, and with the government of British Columbia. One only needs to look at the labour peace that has been achieved since 1986, in 1987 and 1988. One only has to look at the settlements achieved without strike, without a loss of wages, without those men and women who are the members of the union suffering any loss to themselves.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

HON. MR. VANT: Next week is a very significant one for my Ministry of Transportation and Highways. June 4 to June 11 has been declared National Transportation Week. It's very significant for British Columbia because, with 7,500 kilometres of railway track, no less than 42 coastal and inland ferry routes, no less than 375 airports and water-landing areas, 2,500 bridges and well in excess of 45,000 kilometres of public roads throughout British Columbia, we certainly depend on transportation to meet our economic, social and recreational needs.

With the regional transportation plans nearing completion in each of our eight economic development regions, my ministry staff will soon be preparing an overall plan to give us all the freedom to move. I would ask the House at this time to recognize National Transportation Week.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry that our transport critic is not in the House. I thank the minister, though, for giving us advance notice of the statement. I thought It might have been given at the opening of the sitting. I'm fully aware that the minister is within his rights to give it at any time, but unfortunately we lack the opportunity to have our expert respond, and I have to pinch-hit for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is everybody?

MR. ROSE: They're preparing their speeches for later this day.

So I thank the minister. On behalf of this side of the House, I'd like to join with him in recognizing the importance of transportation in our province and throughout our country.

HON. MIL PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $249,374 (continued).

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture, as you mentioned yesterday, certain parts of the agriculture industry are doing well — and I will concede that point. But I think you glossed over certain areas. There are at least five sectors in

[ Page 7187 ]

the industry that are experiencing some difficulties, ranging from fairly difficult to extreme economic difficulties. I think you will probably concede that the strawberry producers are having some problems, the potato growers are having difficulties and many vegetable growers are now in economic difficulty and the grape producers, primarily in the Okanagan and the Similkameen, have been decimated.

There's been a great deal of talk about the great compensation package; in fact, the government has been rather proud of the compensation package. But if you look for some of the vineyards in the Okanagan and the Similkameen, they're not there. About two-thirds of the vineyards have vanished in the last year.

There are a couple of things I'm rather concerned about. First of all — this is a concern that I don't think has been adequately addressed by the ministry — the funds now allocated merely enable most of the growers to rip out their vineyards and close up their businesses. That is hardly for the betterment of the agricultural community. The Okanagan-Similkameen region is where unemployment has ranged in past years from about 16 to 20 percent. It is an area that is very hard hit economically.

High land costs and small farming units make the land viable only for those intense specialty crops that generate high returns per acre. If the minister will recall, some years ago this very ministry encouraged those people to get into grapes. It was the path of the future; that's where the future lay. They accepted the word of the ministry and did get into grapes, so there were about 2,500 acres in grapes in the Okanagan. At least two-thirds of them have gone.

There was a great deal made of the compensation package of $28 million, but I don't think it was enough, and I'll tell you why.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Let's examine it very closely. It's very easy for you to laugh, but if you were a grape grower who was 40, 50 or 60 years old, and you had no options, you might not laugh quite so much. I'm rather surprised at the members.

These guys are not necessarily individuals of my persuasion. They are worried about their livelihood, and I don't blame them at all. They have nothing to fall back on. They can't fall back on UI or pension plans. They were planning for the future, and that future's been cut away. If we want to get a little bit biased about it, let's get biased.

There's been a minimum investment of $70 million in the vineyards. That represents over 600 part-time and full-time workers out of the central Okanagan and Boundary-Similkameen area; that's very important. Over the long run, that represents $2.5 billion of economic activity. Put $28 million against $2.5 billion, and that's why I say it isn't adequate. This government, has not really supported its longtime supporters in this industry.

So I'm asking the minister: what options, other than the compensation package, which I think is inadequate, has been offered to the grape growers? In other words, where do they go from here? Once they've ripped their grapes out, what options have been offered by the ministry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think we went through part of this debate yesterday in doing the estimates. I guess the issue is the $28 million. That negotiating process did in fact involve the grape growers themselves, or their marketing board. The marketing board did agree that the package would be acceptable. They have come to my office and suggested ways that we could turn this around. I can tell you that we are diligently working towards trying to get them readjusted into the vinifera types, as I said yesterday.

Let me assure you, before I say too much else, that there's a lot of agriculture that's not guaranteed. There's a lot of business in this province that is not guaranteed. Should we not be careful about what we say is a guaranteed future for somebody? There are risks to be taken. I don't think anybody who goes into any business ventures out without some risk. I believe that we have to understand that the GATT challenge made against Ontario would have been the inroad to all grape-growing regions, whether in Nova Scotia, Ontario or British Columbia.

I believe we were faced with a challenge — which we accepted and negotiated in good faith with the federal government — to come up with a package that was acceptable to the grape growers. I fully appreciate and realize that some may choose not to go back into grapes, and I understand that the audit process that says they don't get their package until such time as the vines have been pulled has even created a bit of hardship. But you have to understand that we have to be responsible to the people for our treasury. I think that's important, and that's why the audit process is going on.

I'd like to say to the hon. critic that we will do everything we can in working with the grape growers to try to facilitate either their getting into new varieties or seeing if there are any opportunities in any other commodity. I think that's important to recognize. We are working towards that.

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate that reply. If you examine it very closely, first of all, the costs of replanting are around $10,000 an acre. That's generally accepted within the industry. When they get $8,000 an acre, then taking a chance with no guaranteed market to replant at $10,000 an acre is pretty difficult for most of these individuals. In fact, most of them would not take the chance on that. I can understand that well.

Another area — and this is the fifth area at peril, which is extremely important. I alluded to it very briefly yesterday. I'm going to elaborate on it today. This is a sector which has been in deep trouble — not this year, not last year, not the year before or the year before that — but for well over a decade. This

[ Page 7188 ]

particular sector has been a critical sector in the entire agricultural industry. This is the tree-fruit sector. In the valleys of the Okanagan and Similkameen, it has been the number one Industry for around three-quarters of a century. In certain areas there, it's been longer than that.

This industry, which is very important, is threatened. It provides direct or indirect jobs through the industry to around 4,500 people. It contributes around $125 million directly to the economy of the Okanagan and Similkameen. Right now there are hundreds and hundreds of growers who are unable to make it, the way the market system is set up now They simply are not getting enough for their produce. This is a problem, and it's an ongoing problem I know you realize it, I know the deputy minister realizes it, and I know most people in the ministry realize it. I fail to see any progress being made in this area. There have been promises, yes. You give lip-service to the ALR. Yes, you realize they're in difficulty, but not much is being done. What is going to be done in the immediate future? For some of these people, the immediate future is now.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate your comments, and as you are well aware, we have been having meetings between our senior staff and not only the grape growing industry but the whole tree-fruit industry in the Okanagan. We have prioritized that as the number one issue in our ministry. We feel it's very important to try to help some of the producers up there to look at what their potential is in the future. We will do everything we possibly can to come together with them. If it requires an inquiry of some kind as to what we can do to ensure their future for them, we're more than willing to be cooperative. I might say they have been extremely cooperative with us, and we appreciate that. We are working together closely, hon. member. I just hope that we can see the continuation of the fruit industry, because not only is it important to those 4,500 jobs — and up to 6,000 on occasion — it's very important to the whole economy of the Okanagan of this province We well recognize that.

[11:30]

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate the concern of the minister. Perhaps there's another angle. I'm not sure the angle has been well thought out by the ministry. If you look at the Maguire report in the early 1980s, it stressed the natural alliance between the agricultural industry and the tourist industry. If you examine various polls taken in the Okanagan and Similkameen and other parts of the province where tourism has been probably the second industry.... In the Okanagan, they rank one and two, as you well know. First comes the agricultural industry, then the tourist industry. Many of those tourists have come to the Okanagan simply because of the agricultural green belts.

I alluded to the Napa Valley in California yesterday. They've not only made it work in the Napa Valley; they've made it work in other parts of the world. It certainly works in certain parts of Europe — in Italy, where they've safeguarded it very well, in France, in Holland and so on. I'm wondering whether the ministry has anybody studying what I consider a natural meshing or melding of these two, as well as the environmental issues. I feel that there's a natural alignment between environment, tourism and agriculture. I'd like to hear from the minister on this point.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: My hon. critic raises a very valid point. I can assure him that we are working jointly to see what values can be extended throughout each one of those sectors. As you state, tourism is extremely important, and it ties in very closely with the Okanagan orchard industry. I can also say that we would like to see a number of promotional moves in hotels, restaurants and so on. We can feature Okanagan fruit. We can feature apples at the hotel desks where guests can come in and take a B.C. apple. There are lots of ways we can promote the industry to try to keep it alive. I think we have something to brag about, and that is the quality of the fruit grown in the Okanagan. So, hon. member, I concur with what you are saying, and we are in fact working together to try to do a better job for the industry.

MR. BARLEE: I am glad the ministry is finally realizing that. And I think you are. I can see some input coming from the ministry. It's kind of interesting, because I was told yesterday that the Kelowna General Hospital, the largest hospital in the area.... Do they use Sun-Rype products? No, they use McCain. Here is the Sun-Rype area, one of the biggest providers of jobs in the Kelowna area, and the Kelowna General Hospital doesn't even use Sun-Rype products. It's astonishing to me.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Whose fault is that?

MR. BARLEE: At the hospital....

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, I think it is. If there was an effective and coherent "Buy B.C." campaign, which I think should be launched, in answer to the other member, it should be a long-term thing. If I were launching a "Buy B.C." campaign for B.C. agricultural products, I would do it through the electronic and print media and would do it very effectively. It wouldn't be a one-shot deal. With this long-term thing I would take a pan view of the Okanagan orchards and say: "This is why you should buy British Columbia fruit." I would take a pan view of one of the dairy farms in the Fraser Valley or one of the cattle ranches in the Cariboo and say: "This is why it's alive; this is why it's a link; and this is why it's important that we keep these green belts." I think the minister understands that, but I'm not sure everyone on the opposite side does.

I concur with the minister; it's a good start. But I also think that this should be carried on and that it

[ Page 7189 ]

should be a very long-range plan. It can work. I think the public is ready to accept that these green belts and the agricultural industry are important, because they tie in with our quality of life. There is no doubt about it: they do tie in with our quality of life. We've got to keep these green belts and keep them very carefully. We've got to shepherd them.

There is another thing that I am rather concerned about, and I'm not sure that the ministry has addressed it. The minister mentioned yesterday the effect of the free trade agreement and all its possibilities and positives. But I am going to ask the minister one question: has there been, or is there, an ongoing study by the ministry on the impact — both negative and positive, long-term and short-term — that the free trade agreement will have on agriculture in B.C.?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I know that at the present time, for instance, the cattle industry is doing quite well, the tree fruits industry is not doing well, the grape industry is decimated and some of the berry crops are doing extremely well. Is there, or do you envision, a long-term study on this? It's very important, because things can change. The Americans are taking 20 million acres out of their wheat reserves. Those 20 million acres may well go into cattle, and if they do, it will impact on us negatively. I am wondering whether the ministry is anticipating a study on that, or are they already working on it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my hon. critic, we have looked at a number of opportunities under free trade. I guess you could study things for God knows how long. What we have to do is respond positively to get the industry in a competitive mode and do what they do best. They grow quality product in this province, and I think our consumers are very fortunate. We do advertise extensively the Best Buy B.C. program. We are launching extensive ads on TV to promote British Columbia's industry and its product. We also promote via "The Great Taste of B.C." But the most important thing under free trade is that we get our producers to be competitive, however we can help them. It's not going to help them for us to sit and study it. We must act now to try and get them to be cohesive and competitive in the world marketplace and in the U.S., our trading partner, where free trade really impacts on us.

As you stated, hon. member, some sectors will do extremely well. As I stated yesterday, some will have a bit of a problem. But what we should really concentrate on is the quality of the product that we produce in this province and promote it on that basis I can refer to the estate wineries. Some of our estate wineries produce extremely good wines. They grow good grapes that produce that product. We should be promoting that quality more and more and capitalizing on the opportunities existing from it.

I believe strongly that we recognize that the world around us is going to have to look at the trade barriers which are put in place. Those trade barriers cause only one problem: the consumer somehow pays more. We should reduce those barriers to our best ability so that the consumer doesn't have to pay for the entire protection.

The other thing, to my hon. critic, is that in agriculture as a whole under free trade, on a Canada-wide basis it's recognized that agriculture will do quite nicely. It's also recognized that there will be some problems in the horticulture sector, which I related to yesterday. I accept that there will possibly have to be some adjustments, as there were in the grape-growing business.

I think it's also important to recognize that we should not back away from the fact that we have an agreement in place. We have to now facilitate and provide every opportunity we can for our producers to be competitive.

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate the remark, although I really don't concur with it. I'll tell you why I don't concur with it. I think what you do is place the land in jeopardy. I know there are certain sectors of the industry that will not do well; therefore the government must have a commitment to the land. I think the minister has a commitment to the land. I think his ministry has a commitment to the land. But I'm not sure the minister has enough clout in the inner cabinet to prevail on this point, and I'll tell you why.

For instance, if we take a look at the erosion of the agricultural budget through the ministry over the last ten years, it has been remarkable. About ten years ago — 1979 — the ministry was given about 1.7 to 1.8 percent of the total budget. Then it went down to 1.25. Then it went down to 0.9. Then it went down to 0.8. Now it's down to 0.7.

HON. S.D. SMITH: What would you reduce?

MR. BARLEE: I will answer the member for Kamloops. The member for Kamloops is making a great many remarks, not many which really allude to this particular topic we're concerned with. I am concerned with the preservation of the land, and I don't think we have the same commitment. Nor do I think your government — including the inner cabinet — has that commitment.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Are you saying...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARLEE: If you give lip-service to the ALR, then you must follow that up with more than lip-service. It requires more than lip-service; it requires more than the steady erosion of the agricultural budget, which has been steadily eroded under Premier

[ Page 7190 ]

W.R. Bennett and under Premier Vander Zalm. You have no commitment to this particular industry. You are treating it as a sunset industry.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Oh, so you think this budget should continue to go down as it has?

MR CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The debate goes through the Chair, please.

Interjection.

MR BARLEE: Sure he is; I'm really quite surprised. All it does is illustrate exactly what some members of the inner cabinet think about the ALR and the budget for agriculture. All it does is bring that very much to the public forum.

While we're on this, let's go and look at the staff levels. In the early 1980s and late 1970s there were about 700 people in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; then it slipped down to 600; then it slipped down to 500; now it's about 426 to 415. Many of these individuals believe in the land. They like their jobs. I see the continual erosion of the job levels. Is it going to come up, or is it going to steadily go down?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There is a little bit of a debate going on about the ALR. Let me assure you. You talked about not so much the land reserve but more about the support for the producers. You're really hitting on the question of the kind of support there was for agriculture production. Let me assure you that in talking about the budget and its reduction, you criticize it by a percentage point. When you're budgeting, you identify programs that are for the industry.

If you had to take a look at all ministries, there's nothing more difficult than trying to forecast the actual market returns that will come in year in and year out. There's nothing for sure, except maybe those in the supply management sector. I can tell you that it's very difficult to predict what the market return will be for grapes or for apples — if I can use the reference to your particular riding. I can tell you that on a number of occasions we get people who come forward from the respective commodity groups to make presentations to our ministry to have special programs put in place when they run into difficulty.

I'll tell you, hon. member, we have a very good record of helping out the agricultural sector when they need it. We went to the inner cabinet and said: "This is the problem in a given area. This is what's required in the way of adjustment." I might say I had very good support from my hon. colleagues, and I commend them for that.

On the issue of the FTEs, I think it's important to recognize that it's not unique to Agriculture and Fisheries that we had a reduction in FTEs; it happened throughout government. Also, I'd like to commend the staff for the effort they put forward. They work extremely hard on behalf of — guess who? — the agriculturalists, the farmers and, above all, the people of this province. They are representative of a very important industry — extremely important. So few of us realize that what our farmers and our staff work towards is producing a good quality product for the consuming public, and that is food. Boy, is that ever necessary for the survival of the human body. We will continue to strive for that.

[11:45]

MR. SERWA: I think I would be remiss if I didn't enter into the debate with the Minister of Agriculture. I've been listening to my opposition colleague, the second member for Boundary-Similkameen, for some time, and I know that he is a neophyte in his role as critic and as an MLA. As a lifelong member of the Okanagan community, I am somewhat surprised that he has a shortfall in his knowledge about some areas of agriculture. I'm somewhat disappointed with the tack that he has taken.

I think that we collectively recognize that agriculture, especially horticulture in the Okanagan, has serious difficulties. There's no need to emphasize or expand on those. I think what we're looking for, Mr. Minister, is some positive and constructive assistance to the horticulture industry. In actual fact, much of the plight of the horticulture industry tan be traced back to the NDP and their agricultural land freeze in their brief tenure of government here.

What transpired at that particular time was their short-term commitment — in lieu of any type of compensation — and failure to recognize that what they called a rezoning process was perhaps the greatest theft perpetrated on any free people in a democracy, which was taking a package of rights away from freehold landowners. They did this without any compensation or recognition. I think that a lot of the problems that we find ourselves in is a legacy of that commitment.

They did make a commitment to see that agricultural sectors enjoyed economic viability. Like many of their commitments, nothing was done in any great detail. We still fight the legacy of their involvement in such things as the forced amalgamation of the city of Kelowna, which hasn't been resolved yet, because things weren't drawn up and inked properly by an amateur government.

We have to recognize that here in Canada, of all of the free nations of the world, we spend perhaps the lowest percentage of our disposable income on food — 16 percent to 17 percent. The second member for Boundary-Similkameen referred briefly to Europe and also to the Napa Valley. There is a great cultural difference there. We have nations that collectively were confronted with two world wars. They knew the devastation and the difficulties with food production, and they value food production exceedingly highly. In North America generally, we've lived in a land truly of milk and honey and of plenty. Yes, Europe does place a greater emphasis on agricultural production, and 1 percent of the gross national product of the European Export Community is committed to subsidizing agricultural production. If you

[ Page 7191 ]

look at the size of that gross national product of the European Export Community, you can acknowledge the degree of subsidization that confronts us as an absolute challenge in our productivity. Close to 70 percent of agricultural cost of production is subsidized through that free market.

Our agricultural producers, as we know, are impacted by a lot of inflated inputs: labour, energy, equipment, spray materials, water and land. All of these inputs are highly inflated, yet we're trying to tell our people that they have to produce agricultural products and sell at the world market price. We had an excellent agricultural forum in Kelowna, and I think the issue was fairly well covered. It's virtually impossible to do that.

We have two different issues being discussed by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen here today, and they're related, but they are separate. He discusses the ALR and the economic viability of agriculture. When I speak about agriculture, probably I'll restrict my remarks to the horticulture industry, which is dominant in the Okanagan. Certainly a lot of the charm, beauty and the quality of life that we enjoy in the Okanagan is because of the horticulture industry.

There are certainly problems that we're confronted with, but these problems are not simply governmental problems. No dominant government, by being larger or throwing more money at the package, is going to resolve this. Society collectively bears responsibility. When we look at Europe — and I'm familiar with northern Italy and Austria.... A number of years ago I was in Austria in my involvement with the ski-lift business, and I was inquiring into the price of agricultural farmland there. I was told that some bottom land, which was hay production land in the valley bottom, was worth $90,000 a hectare — for 2.5 acres, $90,000. This was in the mid-1970s. Obviously society there has placed a high value on agricultural land. It is apparent from the land prices in the Napa valley that society has placed a high priority and a high value on that particular land mass. It produces splendid-quality grapes with a good balance of sugars and acids to produce premium wines. It survives in a market economy at the valuation society collectively places on it.

But society collectively has spoken in British Columbia. That's one of the dilemmas facing our agricultural producers. They have no option; they are frozen in. They have no bargaining position nor any bargaining stance that they can take. This is enunciated by the recognition that a group of agriculturalists who have long-term commitments to agriculture, some the fourth and fifth generation residents of the Okanagan Valley, are part and parcel of a large group of individuals requesting that some 3,000 acres or 4,000 acres come out of the Okanagan Valley. Obviously they like farming, they have enjoyed it, they enjoy the quality of life, they're knowledgeable, capable, hard-working. Economic viability isn't there. Any equity they've had, and in some places they've had 100 percent equity, has been eroded over the years. They're on second and third mortgages, and that's what they're living on.

We have to recognize the fact that, as I said, society has spoken. Society says that the agricultural land, which is a motherhood issue, is not valued very highly by society. We place much higher values on residential land, on industrial land, on commercial land. That's how society has spoken. Society also speaks when it goes to the supermarkets and does not buy British Columbia agricultural products. Society speaks when you recognize that fundamentally the loyalty is more often to price rather than to the country of origin of the product. Society also speaks — with some duplicity, unfortunately — when we are not permitted to use certain pesticides, herbicides or fungicides here in Canada and especially in the province of British Columbia; yet food chains that originate in jurisdictions where these restrictions are not available are able to market their product in this society.

When we look at this, it's not a simple type of problem. Yes, I think that, partially, government is involved. Certainly society collectively is involved. But the industry itself is involved too. When I spoke about the results of the land freeze and the legacy that is left, part of it is simply this: when the growers were promised economic viability, they stopped tending to the costs that were incorporated into the system. The costs are from transportation, from packing costs, from all of the ancillary costs, marketing costs, to take the agricultural production — apples is the one I'm talking about — to market, because of the subsidy that government was committed to provide. So what there was was less resistant, perhaps, to the upward spiral of the incorporation costs.

For example, the apple-grower at the moment receives 2.1 cents a pound for his apples from the marketplace. He used to get all of his return from the marketplace. As the subsidies went up, he accepted less and less from the marketplace and more and more from the government. In a way, he abdicated some of his responsibility for the control of his own destiny. Packing costs presently run about 15.3 cents a pound. That's over seven times the cost to the grower. The selling costs per pound work out to 3.5 cents, which exceeds, again, one and a half times the return that the grower receives. So we run into a wholesale cost of 20.9 cents per pound in apples. Now when I look in the supermarkets, whether it's in Kelowna or Vancouver or Victoria, I see prices of 79 cents to 89 cents per pound. I think that the fruit growers have to recognize that they have to have a handle on the costs, because the costs of packing are a chargeback to the returns that the grower rightfully expects.

I believe that the marketplace, in actual fact, is paying a fair price for the product. Our problem is that a whole industry stands on the shoulders of the grower, but the grower, fundamentally, is not getting the return. The return is picked off through the system before it trickles down to him. I'm really concerned about the future of the horticulture industry in the Okanagan Valley.

[ Page 7192 ]

We have a number of suggestions, and the growers are effective, efficient managers. We're looking at dwarf trees to increase production and reduce the input costs. They're doing all sorts of things. Certainly there are some hazards involved, and this last freeze was an example of some of the problems that we're confronted with, because the dwarf trees are relatively shallow-rooted. When the snow cover went and the cold weather and the frost came, we lost a fair number of the trees.

What the honourable member from Boundary Similkameen doesn't realize or doesn't dwell on or doesn't emphasize adequately is that saving the land is not enough. Fundamentally we have to save the farmer. I will say this on behalf of my colleagues from the Okanagan Valley, the member from Okanagan North (Hon. L. Hanson), my colleague the second member from Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself and my colleague the first member from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer): at the time of the implementation and the recognition of the free trade agreement, there was a great deal of earnest activity to ensure that a compensation package was realized on behalf of the grape growers of the Okanagan.

The 3,000 some-odd acres of grape production are very important to our economy. We recognize this. We held meetings with the Minister of Agriculture, the Premier, members of the Grape Marketing Board and the wineries. In the end, we have achieved an admirable compensation package which I am exceedingly proud of, and which I believe may be the only compensation package that has been successfully achieved involving both the provincial and federal governments in recognition of the bilateral trade agreement.

The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen indicates "not enough," and that's a constant hue and cry that I've heard so often, and it's not surprising. What is enough? We talk about a cost of production of $10,000. For many years the grape industry in the Okanagan has enjoyed a substantial amount of economic viability. It was one of the bright lights in the Okanagan, as far as the agriculture industry is concerned. The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen has to recognize that the return to grape growers was very strong and very handsome.

On the basis of the strength of that particular industry, properties have traded for much higher land values and higher expectations. Because of the bilateral trade agreement, those expectations were not realized. They had a closed market, and they had an iron grip on the sale and on the pricing of grapes The harsh facts of reality, through the competitive market environment, deny and preclude the extension of that agreement. Nevertheless, I'm very proud and very pleased with the agreement and the hard work of the Okanagan MLAs — and that was prior to your time, hon. member — that we were involved in and the package that we realized.

I may speak later on as further topics of interest come up in this particular estimate. It's a very important industry to the Okanagan. The B.C. tree-fruit industry just concluded their first 100 years as an active organization. I look forward to seeing it continue, and I hope that some day they will realize their 200th anniversary.

[12:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the comments that were made by my hon. colleague from Okanagan South. Certainly we as a government well recognize how important the agriculture and fisheries industries are to the province of British Columbia. As was said yesterday in my opening comments prior to getting into the debate of my estimates, the industry is a $10 billion industry; it's very significant. I think my hon. colleague has made the point that to the Okanagan Valley, it's an extremely important industry.

I think the points raised by the member relative to some of the difficulties, how we are competitive, what we are allowed to use, the cost of inputs and what we are getting in the way of return from the marketplace.... I don't think my hon. colleague mentioned that the cost of producing those apples is about 14 cents, and they're getting around two cents. I don't know too many businesses that survive on that basis for very long. Consequently, we have had a program that has tried to help them. But beyond that, as I mentioned earlier, we had to put a special program in place for the 1987 crop, which we were very pleased to offer to help sustain those producers who suffered very grave difficulty with the Red Delicious crop.

MR. BARLEE: I thank the minister for his explanation. But to get back to several points made by the first member for Okanagan South, whom I've known for many years, I think it comes down to a difference in fundamental or basic philosophies, and I take issue with several of the points he made. Certainly the marketplace does dictate certain things, but I think when it's an issue as important as the survival of the orchard lands and the agricultural greenbelt, maybe the marketplace should be in second place.

I'll tell you why. We only produce about a quarter of 1 percent of the world's apples, and because of various things, we probably never will be completely competitive.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Therefore we have a choice to make: either we keep the ALR, or we let it go. I think we should keep it, and I'll tell you why we should keep it. We have about 4 percent of the lands in British Columbia in the ALR. But out of that 4 percent, only half of 1 percent are really very fertile lands. Many of those lands are in class 1, class 2 and class 3 in the Okanagan, and I think they're worth preserving. I think the original social contract made in 1973 should be honoured. I know that it places a burden upon the government; I know that it may not be popular. I know it may not fit the marketplace. I am saying it's worth it.

[ Page 7193 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I am saying that the greenbelt — which I guess the member for Kamloops does not agree with — is worth saving. I think it is worth saving. I think the livelihood of these farmers is worth saving, and the government should realize this. I don't think that commitment is being carried on. I have seen a continual erosion of it for many years, and I am concerned about it. I am not the only one concerned about it. A lot of your former adherents or former followers are equally concerned about it.

A couple of things come to mind. Evidently the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture is now talking about a disaster relief fund. I would like the minister to explain exactly what is going on in the negotiations with the BCFA concerning the so-called disaster relief fund, which I understand is to provide funds for certain parts of the industry that may be suffering severe economic penalties.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would just like to make a few remarks on the minister's estimates and perhaps at the same time respond to a couple of the points made by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen.

He talks about the preservation of the ALR, and I know that our minister is certainly very much a supporter of the agricultural land reserve and of preserving farmland.

I want to say for the record that to my memory the two largest parcels of prime agricultural land ever taken out of the agricultural land reserve occurred during the years 1974 and 1975. There are occasions where I have witnessed and have been a part of decisions where large units of the agricultural land reserve, such as 20-acre plots, have been reduced in size to perhaps five acres and maintained and kept in the agricultural land reserve, where it has been proven they are more productive agriculturally in smaller parcels than they were in larger parcels. So I think there are many positive things being done in that area.

I couldn't help but hear the member's comments regarding the "Buy B.C." program. I want to say that I don't think there's a province in our country that is more supportive and does more in working hand in hand with the agricultural community — and, indeed, industry and commercial developments — than the province of British Columbia. I think of the "Buy B.C." program as having been extremely successful One only has to go in any supermarket and witness the success of the program.

Also, Mr. Chairman, under this administration the percentage of British Columbia products sold by the B.C. Ferry Corporation on those beautiful vessels has increased during this administration from 57 percent B.C. content to well over 90 percent. We know that it will never reach 100 percent, because there will always be a need to encourage outside products to perhaps test the market so we can further encourage development within British Columbia. So new products will always be necessary, but we have improved and increased the B.C. content during this administration from around 57 percent to well over 90 percent.

If the member were to spend any amount of time examining what is being done in other areas of the government, such as the B.C. Purchasing Commission supplier development division, he would find many other success stories in that area.

He mentioned Sun-Rype products being in hospitals of British Columbia. He mentioned Kelowna in particular, and I can advise the member he can go to most hospitals in our province and witness similar products being sold from McCain. Perhaps it would do him well to visit the Sun-Rype management and discuss their problem as to why they're not able to penetrate the hospitals, airlines, Kelowna airport cafeteria, etc.

He will find two things. First of all, he will find the product is being rejected by hospitals and airlines primarily because of the container. It is a rectangle container with a straw, and when you squeeze the container the ingredient spills over either the patient's or the passenger's lap, and it is just not acceptable. You talk to the management as to why the container is that way and why they don't make them along similar lines to McCain's, and you will find that the federal government has subsidized McCain to the tune of millions of dollars to provide them with the infrastructure and the tools to do the job to retool their operation.

It's interesting to look at our federal MPs — members of the New Democratic Party back in Ottawa — addressing problems such as this. The member would be well advised to read Hansard coming from Ottawa and see where his cohorts back in Ottawa point their attention. I have spent many hours reading Hansard, and in question period it seems that his members back in Ottawa are much more interested in things like what's going on in South America, Nicaragua, budget leaks and nuclear subs, and the story goes on and on. It's rare to see any of those federal NDP members ever talking about the interests of the province of British Columbia — whether it's subsidies to McCain versus Sun-Rype, whether it's B.C. jobs, whether it's a fair share of the Ottawa pot for British Columbia, and things of interest to the province.

Before closing I do want to commend our Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think it should be highlighted and perhaps spoken about more often: the tremendous successes in agriculture in this province, without any direct assistance from government. I think it's timely to read into the record and to speak for a few minutes about those success stories, without any direct provincial assistance.

Let's talk about aquaculture. The salmon industry and aquaculture have grown over the last five years from zero to $50 million in value; that's in five short years. That figure is growing exponentially. Talk about the shellfish industry. Again, no direct government assistance — it has grown from zero to $20 million in five short years. Talk about the greenhouse

[ Page 7194 ]

flowers: doubled production value, from $25 million to $50 million, in the last five years. Talk about the raspberry industry, another growth industry: from $13 million to $20 million in seven short years. Cranberries: an increase in production from $10 million to $20 million in the past ten years. Nursery trade: phenomenal growth — $40 million to $70 million in ten years. Specialized vegetables doubled in value in the past three years, from $2 million to $4 million. A brand-new industry in the last year, the game farms: only one year old and already in the neighbourhood of a million dollars in production.

I can go through my constituency farm after farm after farm: no government assistance whatsoever. I look at the lawn sod industry, the canary feed industry; I look at all types of marketing boards, where there are no direct government subsidies. I think we should be encouraging the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Yes, we have troubled areas in the province. We admit that. We know there are problems in certain sectors, but we must look for more and more diversity in the province. Diversity is strength. We must have that free enterprise spirit; we must use our ingenuity.

We must encourage our farmers to attend the college courses that are put on. I want to commend the minister for working with the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). In my constituency just five short weeks ago a weekend seminar was sponsored by Okanagan College, the Salmon Arm division. They put on a freshwater aquaculture course. Scores of people attended that. I believe there were 28 or 30 participants. It was very well received, and it certainly has the potential to be another growth industry in the interior of the province, one which does not require any direct government grants or subsidies.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate the comments The member recognizes that in his particular riding — and it's the case throughout British Columbia, by and large — agriculture can boast about a lot of success stories. I'll tell you, agriculture has a great future, in my opinion, as do the fisheries. As I stated yesterday, a number of opportunities are presenting themselves, if we look at the world around us. That's part of our job as a ministry and as politicians: to look at opportunities. We encourage not only the involvement of agriculturists but also of aquaculture and the fisheries sector. We will continue to do everything we can to make certain that we provide those opportunities as they come along.

I have heard some comment about the ALR. My hon. colleague just raised the parcel sizes. Generally speaking, there has always been some concern that if you downgrade the size of the parcels, it's probably going to end up as a non-productive unit; that's sometimes the reference. I've also seen occasions where downsizing a number of those parcels, whether into eight hectares or even 20 hectares, means that somebody else can get into the business, maybe in a more concentrated effort. I commend the statement, because in fact it is true. There are occasions when maybe it does not work that way, but there is always an effort made when somebody gets a small enough parcel.... The costs may not be so prohibitive, and they can get into a particular market niche of their own by growing a given commodity.

[12:15]

I thank the hon. member for those comments. I appreciate that in his particular constituency there is recognition that agriculture and fisheries — he mentioned how important aquaculture opportunities are — have a great future. We will continue as a government, I might add, to promote the importance of that industry. I, as the minister representing the Crown, will do everything I can to make sure every effort is provided to our industry towards its success.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Ministerial Statement

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON
ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION DEADLINE

HON. S.D. SMITH: On May 11, the Supreme Court of our province heard an application for an order which would have effectively forced members of this House to vote for the enactment of a specific form of legislation. Such an order, if allowed, in effect would have had the courts direct each member of this assembly — or at least a majority of members — to cast their vote in a certain manner. That would have imposed, in my opinion, a kind of jurocracy on the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Justice Meredith, in the absence of a new Chief justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, carefully weighed the issues and this morning rendered his written decision. I will quote from that decision and table its contents when I finish:

"The first right which would be violated by the imposition of a deadline is the right of the members of the Legislative Assembly to vote according to their convictions. In correcting the equality imbalance, the members of the Legislative Assembly have choices to make. To decree that they make one choice or another is to deprive those members of their right, to say nothing of their obligation, to vote according to their convictions. I must assume that good faith will ensure that the convictions will be within constitutional bounds.

"To establish a deadline beyond which the legislation will not be in place" — and he places those words in italics — "would be to require that the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly agree on a course of action. I consider it quite beyond the inherent power of the court to compel agreement. In any case, to do so would be to effectively legislate. That must also be beyond the remedial powers that are reposed in the court.

"So I conclude that the establishment of a deadline would be in direct violation of the rights and obligations of the Members of the Legislative Assembly,

[ Page 7195 ]

would threaten the violation of the right of the people of British Columbia to the existence of a Legislative Assembly, and would threaten the violation of the right of citizens of Canada to vote for Members of a Legislative Assembly, to say nothing of eradicating the right to vote, whether equal or not.

"I think it must be left to the Legislature to do what is right in its own time. For these reasons, I refuse to make the order applied for."

Mr. Speaker, this decision means our legislators and their committees can continue to do their work without the potential concern of some external institution imposing a decision upon them. Their work began prior to justice McLachlin's decision. Members have a responsibility to do their duty within the framework of our constitution, including the Charter, and they, as ever in all parliaments, have a duty to act on their own volition and according to their personal convictions whenever they cast a vote in this assembly.

Mr. Justice Meredith has ensured members' independence is preserved.

MR ROSE: I hope the Attorney-General will be as anxious to read a decision that he doesn't appreciate as he was to read this one, which I think falls right in line with his own thinking. I take a little umbrage and criticism at his lack of courtesy in not letting us know about this decision, when he could easily have let us know so that we could have had an opportunity, as he did, to prepare a proper response. I think it's the kind of courtesy which gentlemen and ladies could encourage in this House, to award that respect to one another. He's not chosen to do that, which is not really a class act.

HON. S.D. SMITH: This decision was rendered just this morning. I just received it a few moments ago and prepared my response. The House Leader advised the opposition House Leader that I would be speaking in this House. It is a matter of public record. It is a matter that the opposition could easily have available to them in the same way as I had it available to me, coming from our independent courts. Frankly, I am becoming a little nauseous at the sort of whimpering and whining that comes from that House Leader and from other members over there when their critics are away and they are paid fulltime by the people of this province to be here in this House. I think they ought to be here and ought to respond in the same timely fashion as members on this side do when they do their duty for the people.

MR. ROSE: I am unaware of the grounds on which the minister gained the floor. Was it a point of order or something? Or was he as out of order as he frequently is when he's dealing with this Legislature?

Interjection.

MR ROSE: What he's doing most of the time is attempting to harass and bully the Legislature. He's a legal bully, that's what he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is....

HON. S.D. SMITH: On a point of order, the word "bully," as we all know, is unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is one that ought not to be used.

But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think we should descend into the kinds of things we used to see in here, when leaders of parties deliberately got themselves thrown out of the House. That sort of thing pushes us onto a threshold we ought not to pass.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. S.D. SMITH: When we're dealing with something as important as we are today, the rights of parliament...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. S.D. SMITH: ...I think it behooves the House Leader to respect this parliament and its Chair.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please take your seats.

The Attorney-General rose to make a ministerial statement; it was responded to by the opposition House Leader. This is not a debate. If anyone wishes to rise on a point of order that's acceptable, but we are not debating the statement made by the Attorney-General.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to be free for a moment to express my thoughts without the usual harassment coming from the front bench over there. I would just like to respond in kind by saying that when we descend back into the depths that we left under the Bennett institution, of which he was a prominent member, that member will be leading the parade right down into the basement, into the gutter. That's where you'll be. That's the only place you're comfortable: in the gutter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we've had enough. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is my privilege to put forward Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

[ Page 7196 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this chamber will come to order and will stay in order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 contains measures designed to improve the administrative function of British Columbia's municipalities and to increase the range of powers available to local government in keeping with our policy of decentralization. It also contains a variety of measures designed to improve the financial operation of British Columbia's municipalities by enhancing their autonomy and increasing their flexibility In addition, the bill facilitates the ability of local governments to guide development in a manner which is sensitive to economic, environmental and social conditions.

The bill introduces measures to improve the function of the democratic process at the municipal level. It empowers councils and regional boards to adjust specified area boundaries. It deregulates the developmental approval process while maintaining its integrity and introduces a variety of improvements to the way in which the municipality functions as an organization.

I am therefore happy to move that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not my intention to debate the bill to extreme in second reading. However, I give the minister notice that there are some concerns and areas we will wish to canvass. Generally, though, we think the bill is basically supportable.

There are certain sections we wish to question and discuss, particularly section 4 on the ability of local councils to grant greater tax exemptions to churches, private schools, etc. There may be some considerations and concerns there, but from what I understand — and the minister can respond to this in committee — the bill goes beyond exempting just the building and the Immediate land around it; the council may now exempt any area of land surrounding the exempted building or exempted hall. That may be of concern to real estate property taxpayers. Councils may, in their wisdom, decide to exempt large tracks of land just because there is a church or municipal hall, or some kind of activity that is of religious orientation.

[12:30]

The other area deals with the question of the regulation of gravel and soil pits. This amendment takes away a municipality's ability to issue prohibitions against the removal of soil and gravel and gives the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I believe, some responsibilities in that area. I want to know why that happened and whether there was a specific reason for bringing that kind of change in. Local councils may be concerned about not having that kind of responsibility again.

Also, not in a critical way, section 13, I believe, will deal with subdivision of lands to provide a residence for relatives. That has been a sore point for some time, and we'll just get into some general discussion of that, I believe, in committee.

I don't see any particular problem with the other areas, Mr. Speaker. We'll have, as I say, some questions on the removal and deposit of soil, and the tax exemption. Otherwise, we'll be supporting the bill in principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, you are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is little left to say. I'm happy to move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, 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. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 21.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 21 contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to Cultus Lake Park, our fire services, the homeowner grant, the mobile-home tax, revenue-sharing, and a variety of enabling and validating measures.

This bill, in a variety of ways, improves the function of democracy in our province. It enhances our ability to protect ourselves from fire, modernizes the definition of a mobile home for tax purposes, and introduces measures which individual local governments have recommended. as being of significant benefit at the local level.

I therefore move the bill be read a second time now.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the government side these days are in such bad trouble that they've got to have the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) do their defence. It's back to the old Bill Bennett days, the old dirty, dirty Bill Bennett days. Things are so bad.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is basically — and I'm surprised the minister didn't say it — housekeeping, generally, if the minister will agree. I've gone through it fairly carefully. I see no major problems with it. However, there is one section that I will raise with the minister. That's section 5, the Fire Services Act. It's my understanding that this amendment removes the statutory requirement for municipalities to inspect hotels, schools, theatres, skating-rinks, dance-halls and other public buildings at least every

[ Page 7197 ]

two months. There may be some reasons for that, and the minister can explain it. I have some reservations about taking out statutory public standards. It may be a liability question, but I'm not sure we should be removing.... Again, subject to what the minister and her staff relate to this side of the House, we may wish to move an amendment in that particular section.

I see no other areas of concern. Generally, I think it cleans up areas the minister has been working on, and we intend to support the legislation — subject to section 5, obviously, which may be subject to an amendment by myself when we get to committee.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, 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. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn the House I would wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. It looks like the weatherman has promised to cooperate, and we'll see everyone back here at the usual time, Monday at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.