[ Page 7231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7231

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7231

Mr. Jones

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. G. Hanson

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call report on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Bill 26 read a third time and passed on division.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

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

MR. JONES: Yesterday in debate on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture I think we got into some perhaps u—nfortunate areas, and I accept partial responsibility for that. I was questioning an area that's been very well covered in the media in such magazines as Equity, and as a result of what I consider the evasive answers of the minister, I think we got into some perhaps unfortunate accusations. I'm hoping that this morning we'll have an opportunity for the minister to more clearly clarify his role and his position in some of these areas.

I'd like, at the outset, to clarify my concern. I'm from an urban riding, the same riding I grew up in, and I spend very little —time in the year with anything to do with agriculture. I think people like myself are accused by farmers of coming to the farm community once a year to enjoy the pastoral setting and then going away and not being concerned about the very difficult plight that farmers face in this province. That's certainly not true in my case. I am very c—oncerned about the farming community and its economic difficulties. That concern was expressed in my position on the free trade agreement. I was concerned about three areas with respect to that agreement: loss of social programs, loss of cultural identity and the uneven playing-field created by the agreement, which will probably impact most heavily on the farming community, as we've seen in the Okanagan.

I believe that as far as the agricultural land reserve goes, it's critically important to the future of this province to preserve agricultural farmland. I also believe that it's critically important to preserve wildlife habitat wherever possible. What I am concerned about and opposed to is speculative land development, which can rob us of a very important future in this province and extremely valuable farmland. That was the genesis of my comments yesterday: the concern of loss of farmland.

As with my dealings with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I am most pleased with the minister when I see him as an advocate for education.

I'm very supportive of the minister when he does that. I had the same expectation of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), that in terms of preservation of farmlands we would see a strong advocate. Sadly I have not seen that. It seems that rather than fighting to protect the farmlands, the minister has done such things as warn farmers against environmentalists who have the same concerns as the farmer. They want to protect that farm land, particularly when it also serves the wildlife habitat. The minister implies in his comments that there's some degree of incompatibility between farming and wildlife protection.

The minister indicated in his comments yesterday that there is sometimes crop damage due to wildlife. I'd like to ask the minister: has he made any effort to inform farmers that there are federal programs of compensation to compensate them when migratory birds do cause crop damage?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: All the preamble that led up to the question I could draw you out again, I suppose. I don't think anybody has been a stronger advocate of agriculture than I, that I can recollect. You can have all the farmland in the world, hon. member across the way, but without the farmers, what good is the farmland? I think that we'd better start looking for the moment at how we're going to keep the farmers on the land rather than worrying about the land.

I could go through quite a number of stories of crop damage by migratory birds. I can cite one instance on Westham Island where ten acres of winter cauliflower, at $3,000 an acre, were virtually wiped out. Would you mind informing me what the crop level is under federal jurisdiction? Do you know how much compensation there is? Fifty dollars an acre. Who covers the rest? That compensation program is designed for grain-farming. It does not cover all crops.

I think it's fair enough that you ask if I have informed farmers. Definitely, but the program that is there is not going to respond to those types of losses, because the coverage is limited by the contract. What we're trying to do as a government is to say: "Listen, we need to recognize that there are higher productivity units here in British Columbia, and of a totally different nature than in grain-farming." That might be fine for the Peace River district, but when we come to the Fraser Valley or the Okanagan Valley.... You can talk about the damage done by ungulates or, obviously, by migratory birds — or by any kind of a bird, for that matter. But we need to design a program that gives the farmer some insurance that he will not bear the total loss; that's the unfortunate thing that has happened in the past.

I sort of concur with what you're saying: we do have a problem with that. But we are working with the federal government, to say: "Listen, we have to address some of those specific concerns." There is no

[ Page 7232 ]

doubt that I have told farmers that crop insurance is available for them as well for damage by migratory birds.

MR. JONES: The Minister of Agriculture again suggests something that I have some difficulty with. Certainly I'm no expert in agriculture, but it seems to me that in terms of priority, we first have to preserve the land base of high-quality farmland; then we have to take measures to ensure that the farming community can operate as a viable part of the economy. Unless we have that agricultural land base, we can't do the second one.

I'd like to pursue it just for a moment. I'm sure the minister is aware that countries such as Japan have been major importers of Canadian food products; I believe it was $40 billion worth of food products from around the world last year. Canada's share of that was $2.11 billion, and that was up 27 percent from 1987. Canadian food exports to Japan are now double those of all other countries in western Europe.

[10:15]

It's been stated that the Japanese are interested in almost everything we have to offer, and that's a quote from a Canadian trade official. Because of the tremendous potential and the minister's concern for making a viable economic farmland, what has the minister done specifically to encourage overseas trade? I know he has taken some measures. I'd like to hear the minister's comments as far as his efforts are concerned in making sure that B.C. products are marketed, available and promoted in offshore countries like Japan.

I know the minister has spent time in Asia-Pacific, and I'd like to hear of the potential there. I think it is a tremendous potential, and I think the farming community has a tremendous future in this province.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The hon. member is quite correct: we do see a large potential for agricultural and fisheries products from British Columbia. I suppose a really bright light is the fact that although some would question how big the fisheries market is, it is certainly something we are pursuing very strongly. In fact, we had a program that was helping the industry promote fisheries products on export markets.

We also do a fair amount of marketing of things like apples. The non-tariff barriers — for instance, the tobacco mould and things like that, which are approximately 3,000 miles from us here — are barriers used against us when we try and ship, for example, tomatoes or cucumbers. We are overcoming some of those barriers. In fact, we are shipping hothouse product to Japan now; we are also shipping apples, as I think you are well aware; and we are continuing to look at opportunities to expand on those for our agricultural people. That's part of the growth that has taken place in the industry. We are looking at some of the export opportunities, including those in Japan.

I think you are also well aware of the barriers that were prevalent in discussions with the U.S., Canada and other nations. There are tremendous barriers, for example, with beef; oranges were very contentious; and about eight other products. I think there were ten on the table at the last round of discussions. Because Japan has agreed to reduce some of those barriers, we are probably able to access that market to a greater extent now than in the past.

If I recollect properly, when you ship a tonne of wheat to Japan, it lands at something around $1,800 by the time it gets to the person who is going to make flour out of it, the processing side. There's a substantial difference, because of those trade barriers, between what we as producers in Canada get for that product and what the product costs when it gets there. It's sixfold and eightfold from what the Canadian producer gets.

We are aggressively pursuing the opportunities for both agriculture and fisheries in outside markets. I think we have great potential in the Pacific Rim.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the minister that there is great potential. I think that because these kinds of programs are possible and ongoing it is possible to make an extra effort to preserve farmland so that we have the base to provide those products to overseas countries.

I must confess that I've not been one personally, when shopping, to seek out B.C. products and purchase those products in the interests of the farming community in this province, and I think I've been remiss in that.

Further to the minister's desire to promote our products abroad — and I am one, by the way, who would be willing, even at greater cost, to support B.C. products — I'm wondering what the minister envisions for promoting B.C. products within British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a question that we have been looking at for quite some time. As you know, even through the FTA we talked about wines and grapes and what potential we have and how we can help the industry. I think my hon. critic from Boundary-Similkameen asked the questions. You can apply those same techniques to a number of food products that we produce here in B.C. We advertise B.C. hothouse tomatoes and cucumbers, B.C. apples. We actually identify them with a sticker. We need to do that with canned and frozen products, where we can legibly identify that it's a product of B.C. and we can be very proud of it. We are working towards those goals in conjunction with discussions that are taking place with the processing sector, and how we as a ministry might become involved in promotional efforts and retailing. I think that's important. We're trying to get the restaurant association on side with us, the hoteliers, etc., to boost the B.C. product and its sales. I think we have something we can be proud of, and it's an excellent, quality product.

MR. JONES: I'd like to move back for a moment to the environment question. Those of us who have looked seriously at land use questions in this prov-

[ Page 7233 ]

ince, particularly relating to the forest industry, see a very strong need for a common ground. Pitting loggers against environmentalists is only going to result in a war that will get us nowhere,

I think the same thing applies, particularly, in the minister's riding of Delta, where there is a tremendous conflict going on daily in terms of preserving wildlife habitat and preserving farmland as opposed to developing that farmland for other purposes. I mentioned yesterday my concern about the minister using what I called divide-and-conquer tactics in that riding, pitting environmentalists against farmers rather than working to create the kind of harmony necessary to resolve those difficult land use conflicts in that riding.

I'd like to ask the minister: did he at a May meeting of the Delta Farmers' Institute say: "We can't trust the bird types, because they want to take over Delta"? I'd like to ask the minister, if he did make those statements, why he has adopted those tactics and why he's not working to create harmony between groups in his own constituency?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. member, I don't recollect making a statement like that at all. What I said was that I would have some concerns if the Delta farmlands become totally environmental. I said I had nothing against the environment per se, but we really have to take a look. I think you're making the point that we have to work together. It can't be all one way.

The point of discussion, as I think I raised yesterday, was the first kilometre of the land inside the dike commonly known as the Boundary Bay dike, or Mud Bay area. There was some concern about designating the bay as a Ramsar site, but also looking at the first kilometre inward from the dike as to how we could handle raptors, migratory birds and so on, neither of which know boundaries, as I think I stated yesterday. It's fine. We've been having migratory birds in Delta for God knows how many centuries. They haven't bothered the farmers too much other than to eat their crops. But in my opinion, we can't deal solely with the environment without looking at the compatibility of agriculture.

For instance, if you have an environmentally sensitive area, which I respect I said that yesterday as well; I have as much respect for it as anybody. But do you — as I have been told in my office — keep putting enough pressure on the farmlands for some other use until you force the processing industry out of here? This industry is employing 200,000 people in the province. How much pressure do you put on before you take a few thousand right out of it?

Then you've got the agricultural land base. What do you produce on that land base? You can't tell the farmer that he can't turn the soil over to grow a crop because there are voles or whatever the raptors require. Fair enough — I accept that. But these normal farming practices have gone on for years. If we're not careful, from an environmental perspective, and if we have too much concentration in that effort, we're going to force the farmer out — and eventually the processing sector. They're going to say: "What the heck have we got in the way of land to produce on?" That's a major concern, and that's what was presented to me in a report.

We're losing farmland of the best quality. If we start losing it to special concerns, then they don't have an opportunity. What they told me was that we in British Columbia produce the best quality vegetables in all of western Canada. They want to have some security for the fact that the land base A lot of it is right along the Boundary Bay foreshore, and right inside those dikes is excellent ground. Those are the ones they're very concerned about. If you go one kilometre, then you might say that you need two or three more kilometres. You absolutely move it out, because you're getting close to Burns Bog.

The point I tried to make from an environmental perspective was that farmers have to be careful. If their future is in jeopardy by that designation, they ought to be aware of it. In my opinion, they ought to be consulted with — not just one side making the decision. I wasn't in any way knocking the environment, as you might have perceived it. I was telling farmers they should be part and parcel of those discussions.

MR. JONES: I don't believe the farmland is really threatened by the preservation of natural wildlife habitat. I think it's much more threatened by speculative land development.

I wonder if the report the minister used to buttress his argument would be one that the minister would be willing to make public.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think it's a report. I wouldn't mind sharing the identification part of that report with the hon. member, but I think it was a report directly to our ministry by the processing people. I wouldn't mind showing you where they have their concern.

MR. JONES: Could the minister explain why developers are now purchasing options and purchasing farmland directly at a very alarming rate in Surrey and Delta? Why is it that developers now seem to be so interested in the farmland in the minister's own constituency?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't think it would necessarily be the developers. If you're referring to developers relative to subdivision proposals — if you're aligning it to that — that is not happening. The purchases that you're talking about are for considerations of golf courses. They're not purchasing; they're taking options, as I understand it. I'm not aware of any that have actually been purchased. There are two that were approved by Delta council, but in every application that comes forward for a golf course, they have to go to council and be able to meet the bylaws that were established.

MR. JONES: Could the minister indicate whether he has taken a position with respect to the Delta Downs racing-training sales proposal by Pacific Coast

[ Page 7234 ]

Turf Ltd. ? If he has taken a position, what is that position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not sure what you mean by Delta Downs, hon. member. Is that the same as Pacific Coast Turf? I guess I have to ask the question.

MR. JONES: Yes.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I have stated that from Delta's perspective I think the proposal is one of several that have to be considered by government at some point. Hastings Park, as you well know, is one, along with Colony Farm. There are several being proposed. That decision will eventually have to be made by government.

MR. JONES: Given that two of those proposals which the minister mentioned are on farmland and one isn't, I'm wondering if the minister believes that a racetrack is good use of some 300 acres of farmland.

[10:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think the point being made is that you probably have some concern about what would happen to the racetrack. There are a number of locations throughout North America where anywhere from 300 to 800 acres have been used for racetrack proposals and are quite compatible within the agricultural communities. I don't see that, other than the track and a few of the barns themselves. I think in each case they'd have to stay within the agricultural land reserve. I don't believe there's any proposal that I'm aware of to remove them. It's compatible within the reserve.

MR. JONES: The minister suggests that when we have one option that's outside farmland and two that are in, the minister feels it's compatible to have those 300 acres used for racing purposes. The minister indicates that that decision will be before cabinet. Given that one of the proposals is in the minister's own riding, and because we know that the minister's family owns land nearby.... Clearly there will be a strong impact on the surrounding land in that area. It's predicted that there will be hotels. It is a very large industry — some $175 million annually and it employs 3,000 full-time people and some 5,000 part-time people. It's predicted that there will be hotels and a large service sector to support this industry.

Ted Ewachniuk, one of the principals of Pacific Coast Turf Ltd., indicated: "The location is tremendous. Everyone in the area who becomes involved will benefit substantially." I wonder, given that information, if the minister will be voting on this particular issue when it comes before cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 8 pass? The member for Burnaby North.

MR. JONES: Clearly the minister chooses not to answer a question that I think is a reasonable one.

Interjections.

MR. JONES: No, this is not my information. This is information that is generally available to the public. Anybody who reads in this province has heard accusations towards the minister.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you making an accusation?

MR. JONES: I'm not making an accusation; I'm providing an opportunity for the minister to clarify his role and his position with respect to this difficult area. The minister has very clearly indicated on occasion that he will be voting. I quote from Equity magazine: "I have to take an objective look at any proposal that is at the cabinet table." With respect to this particular racetrack proposal, the minister has indicated that he will be voting. I would caution the minister that the perception from this article is that the minister is in a very difficult position by exercising his vote on this issue. This is an opportunity for the minister to remove any perception of a possible conflict of interest, and I would urge the minister to take advantage of that opportunity.

I'd like to pursue the golf course situation for just a few moments. I'm wondering whether the minister is seeking a new portfolio: perhaps he's interested in becoming minister of sport or minister of economic development. The May 15 issue of Western Report indicates that it's the minister's position that golf courses often bring more community revenue than do farms, or was he perhaps misquoted in this article?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I find a number of the comments made by the hon. member opposite quite interesting. Reading from something, I said golf courses could provide an opportunity for a greater return, depending on the type of farming. That's quite possible. It would depend on the success in both cases of the type of farming and/or the golf course. In all cases, I said the golf courses would not be allowed out of the ALR; they must stay in. That's agreed to by the order-in-council. There is a possibility that the revenue from a golf course could exceed that generated by a farm, depending on the type of farming taken under consideration in the particular area. I don't think there's any doubt about that, quite frankly; it would depend on that.

As far as the other comment about "objectively," I said I would look objectively at anything at the cabinet table. I didn't become specific to that particular race facility you're talking about. I said I sit at the cabinet table objectively on behalf of the people of Delta.

MR. JONES: With respect to golf courses, the minister said yesterday the farming community would be quite happy to have the improved road situation — that it would allow them to drive their farm vehicles unimpeded — and the improved water service and drain facilities that would go along with all this golf course development. It's my understand-

[ Page 7235 ]

ing that the Delta Farmers' Institute has taken a position on this issue, and I quote from the March 3 issue of the Delta Optimist: "As an agricultural group, we cannot support any golf course proposal, because it erodes the land base that is essential to our business."

In light of the position of the farmers with respect to that, I'm wondering whether or not the minister or the government asked for or received any opinion from the Agricultural Land Commission prior to the decision of cabinet to allow golf courses and driving ranges within the agricultural land reserve as an allowed use.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't recollect the direct conversation, but some discussion did take place. In fact, it was an acceptable use before; it was taken out, and it was put back in.

On the issue of the Delta Optimist, you are quite correct in the quote from the Delta farmers. But if you check the record, the Delta farmers made the recommendations on the two golf courses that are presently proposed, on 72nd Street and on 64th Street. In both those cases, the Delta farmers supported it. To draw a conclusion that they are against it They peruse every single application that comes forward. Delta council has the foresight to put it forward for the farmers to look at, because they're the ones who will be impacted.

On the building of roads, there isn't one of the farmers I know of.... We're right on Highway 10 in our own operations, and I will just cite you a good example. Years ago, going down Highway 10 with our grain combine — a 13-foot-wide header, but about 15½ feet wide overall — a gentleman sat behind me and leaned on the horn continually because he couldn't get past me going at 16 miles an hour. When I had the opportunity, I parked the combine across the road and went back and asked him why he was so impatient; if he thought he could drive it any faster, he was to be my guest, and I would lean on the horn in his car behind him and see what he thought of it.

That's the frustration agriculture feels about working on highways. That's why I'm saying they would prefer to use the side roads, but they do need upgrading. If that's part and parcel of the proposal for a golf course, we think Delta should insist that the roads to that particular golf course be upgraded. That isn't going to happen all over Delta. I don't think too many golf courses would be approved, quite frankly, because the farmers are not likely to allow that to happen. They will choose what they think is appropriate and make recommendations to Delta council, but they don't want the frustration of taking huge equipment down the highways. They would prefer to be on the farm side roads wherever possible, even though they are too narrow. I'm sure, hon. member, if you've driven on some of the farm side roads in Delta, you would agree with me. It's very difficult to move equipment down there, because unless you can ask an individual to back up the road into some driveway, the two of you will not be able to pass on the road.

MR. JONES: If the Minister of Agriculture believes that the farmers in Delta have difficulty with the roads now, wait till those roads are packed with golfers late for their tee times, and I think you'll find a lot more honking occurring.

With regard to the Agricultural Land Commission, I believe the chairman of that commission, Mr. Paton — I'm reading into this statement I don't think incorrectly, but perhaps the minister will correct me — indicated that the decision to allow primary use for golf courses and driving ranges was a unilateral decision of the cabinet. That says to me that there was no advice or no advice listened to on the part of the cabinet from the Agricultural Land Commission.

In terms of listening, I do hope that Delta council listens to the Farmers' Institute, but they're very quickly developing a record of not listening to the community. The community is spending hour after hour in hearings with that council, and the general belief of those making presentations to the council is that they are not being listened to.

I'd like to wind up my comments with the concern that I started with. I think we are in a difficult situation with respect to diminishing land base for agriculture. I think history will show that legislation was very important for the future of this province and that successive Social Credit governments have not done a job in protecting either the land base or the farming community.

In order to operate in the best interests of the citizens, the farmers and the environment, a great deal more has to be done. It's very easy to criticize any government in any area, but in terms of the gravity of the neglect we've seen for the future of this province and despite all the good intentions, I don't think the minister can be very pleased with the way the agricultural community and the shrinking land base for farming in this province are going. I see very little effort on the part of the minister to do much to rectify this very serious situation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I take exception to the statement I just heard, because I don't know how many times I've got to stand here and say that I'm an advocate for agriculture. My family and my predecessors have been in the municipality of Delta for in excess of 100 years farming a large part of the delta — all over Delta and leased land in some cases — and I have to take exception to your point that agriculture is suffering. There are a lot of farmers in this province who are doing quite nicely, thank you, if you talk to them.

Agreed, you can pinpoint sectors that are having problems, and I think my hon. critic from Boundary-Similkameen made those points in his opening comments — specific sectors, which I recognize. We're doing our best to try and rectify those problem areas. We're working with those people and we will continue to do so. We understand that there are some problem areas, but we cannot immediately come up

[ Page 7236 ]

with an answer. We have the FTA and GATT, and we've got to be very careful how we deal with programs that are not countervailable. That's very important. But I can assure the member that we'll continue to work hard on behalf of agriculture in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think it's a surprise for the Minister of Agriculture to know why I'm standing up and wanting to raise something at this time during his estimates; hopefully we can get through this fairly quickly. I just want to ask a number of questions related to the Lilydale-Fatt's issue on southern Vancouver Island.

[10:45]

The other day, during question period, I asked the minister a question, and the gist of it really was to confirm that the company, Fatt's, is not coming near that 50,000-bird-per-week quota that it had been provided with as a consequence of what turned out to be a voluntary decision. I want to ask the minister then, in light of the fact that Fatt's is not processing birds at the rate that one had anticipated when the loan guarantee of $500,000 was provided in February, just what the ministry intends to do to safeguard the taxpayers' investment.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I think I answered the question in the House when the hon. member asked it about two weeks back, or whenever it was, there was not a consistent supply of the 50,000 birds we talked about at that time. We are encouraging Fatt's Poultry to secure that supply on their own, if possible. I understand that for the last few weeks it's been up in that range and has improved substantially.

The other side of it is that I don't think the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board is going to necessarily direct all of the chicken to him. They would like to see him contract with a producer, as I understand it. I don't think they particularly want to say to a producer: "You have to ship to Fatt's." I think that's an opportunity that should be left open to the producer of the product — to select who he wishes to ship his product to.

MR. SIHOTA: In ten of the last 15 weeks — and I don't know what's happened this week — they haven't come near that 50,000-bird quota; they've averaged 39,600. In the first couple of weeks in January, I believe, they hit that target. The minister may be right: in the last couple of weeks they may have as well. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head. They've averaged 39,600 in the last 15 weeks. I know that this week they are buying chicken from Lilydale. I'm not too sure if that was the intent either. I appreciate that the board doesn't want to direct that product to go there.

Given that track record — given their inability to hit 50,000 birds — what is the ministry saying to Fatt's? Are you just sitting there quietly monitoring the situation, or are you having discussions with them to see what steps they're taking affirmatively to hit that 50,000?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The board provides our records for us, indicating that Shergar, for example, received 197,000 birds in April. That's very close to the equivalent of 50,000 birds per week. We are hopeful that Mr. Hemani, who is in charge of Fatt's Poultry, will in fact be able to achieve 50,000.

Other programs that are being looked at.... I think the hon. member may well be aware that there is a policy being advertised to increase the number of chicken producers by 20, some of whom will be on Vancouver Island, as I understand it, which may give a further opportunity. I think we should let Mr. Hemani try to achieve the 50,000 on his own.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister, first of all, didn't answer my question. What discussions are you having with Fatt's to assure yourself that he's going to achieve that 50,000-bird target?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have had a couple of phone calls to my office to reiterate that he may need a few more birds. He does admit, on occasion, that he has his 50,000 birds and he's doing all right. I don't think, unless he insists on providing that, that it's a problem. He hasn't indicated that to me in my recent discussions with him. I presume, because of the April records, that he's getting very close to what he requires.

If he's buying part of that 197,000, or whatever it was, in April or maybe in May from Lilydale, I don't think I should interfere in that either. That's up to him.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a peculiar way to do business, but I don't think that's the point I'm trying to make here. I guess we can come back to that later if there's a need to.

It seems to me that before you provided him the loan guarantee, you would have assured yourself that he would have 50,000 birds or some ability to get 50,000. You made your comment about April and the 197,000 birds, and I don't have the actual breakdown. I wish I did; I had it the other day. There have been five weeks out of the last 15 when he has even come near it. He's been averaging 39,600 over that 15-week period. I don't think you can defy those numbers. It's well below 50,000 birds.

He had, prior to this, a quota allotted for 35,000. I don't know if he was hitting it or not prior to January; I can't remember. I used to know that when we were in the midst of this thing. He hasn't really gone much beyond what he was doing in the first place. But it seems to me that the government, before it gave him the $500,000 loan guarantee, would have taken steps to comfort itself that he could get 50,000 birds. What has happened in that time period? What did you believe was going to be the case in January and February, when you were assessing and then providing the guarantee, and what has transpired now? Why did the ministry not assure itself in the first place that he could do it? And now why are you letting him go on to try to hit that target? Then, if I can wrap a series of questions into one, could the

[ Page 7237 ]

minister also say what is going to happen in....? I don't mean a crystal ball, but obviously the government has to be mindful that at the end of September there's going to be an adjustment, I would suspect, in terms of the quotas that are allocated to producers. You say, "Give him some time," when he really doesn't have that much time. How much time are you prepared to give him before you call in your guarantee?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We had reasonable assurances, I believe, from the board that he had the opportunity, that he accessed the 50,000 birds. That's the point I've made two or three times now. I believe that the question you asked — crystal-ball gazing, if you like to call it that — as to whether he can in fact get the 50,000 birds, and, come September, has to back down on some of those to cover the overproduction.... It's up to him to make sure he complies with what we agreed to. But we're encouraging him to try, as I say time and time again, to achieve those 50,000 birds by contracting with those producers to ship to his processing plant. I think he can do that. If it's a problem, I'm sure he will come and tell us. I don't see it as a major problem at this stage. I think if he can get them, due credit to him.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the fact of the matter is that he hasn't been able to get them. And who knows if he will be able to get them? I don't think the minister has any better knowledge of that than I do. He just hasn't performed. You know my opinion: I thought you were wrong in the first place to give him a loan guarantee. I went to the meeting of the producers here on the Island in, I believe, November or December, and there was a resistance to providing him with that level of birds. So it was a resistance to have some directive saying that that should happen. Everything they said in November is coming to pass. They said that he couldn't do it; he isn't able to do it. And you've tinkered with the market, and you've provided him with financial assistance, over those opinions.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I want to ask the minister this question. The other day, in response to the questions asked in question period, he said that there was a process that also involved the Ministry of Finance. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain to me, for the record, what that process is: where his responsibilities end and where the responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance begin.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To answer the question, the proposal comes forward as an agricultural proposal, and the recommendations are sent forward for Treasury Board consideration.

MR. SIHOTA: So at the end of the day, this decision is made by Treasury Board; and in the case of the $500,000 loan guarantee, that was made by Treasury Board. Is that how the process works?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, that is correct. Treasury Board makes the ultimate recommendation and decision. It's put forward then to cabinet, as I understand it.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the minister for that response. Then in this instance, when the $500,000 loan guarantee was passed on to Treasury Board, was it the recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture that it be approved?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I can't recollect that particular application, but I could get the answer for the hon. member. I don't recollect that particular one at this stage.

MR. SIHOTA: I see that Mr. Sakalauskas is here. I would think that he would know. I would like to know that before we conclude these estimates. Is the minister saying that he can get that answer relatively quickly?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe staff would have to go back to the office and look at the submission. Our offices aren't right here; we have to go across the street, up the street a ways, to get them, but possibly it could be done before these estimates are over.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. I'll be happy to go and make the phone call, if the minister wants me to — if he gives me the name of the official I should call over there — and I'll do it between now and 12:00 for him, if a message is sent to his staff, saying to give me the answer. You have three people sitting there; I'm sure only one of them is needed for the discussion on Fatt's. If we could get a phone call, I'd appreciate it.

Given the fact that Fatt's has been unable to perform with respect to the 50,000 birds, which was designed to safeguard the taxpayers' investment in the company, can the minister assure us that no further assistance — whether through loans, grants, guarantees or the like — will be provided to Fatt's?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe this is future action.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That's the point I was going to make. I can't speak for what will happen in the future, but there's no immediate consideration that I'm aware of.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate that that is a future driven question. I'll try to think quickly how to reword it. Maybe I'll just express my concern. I think that people in the industry locally need to know whether or not the type of interference with the marketplace we've seen in the past with Fatt's is going to continue in the future. I don't think it comes as a surprise to the minister for me to say that it's my belief that if you continue on the course you've engaged upon in providing assistance to Fatt's, then

[ Page 7238 ]

you jeopardize operations elsewhere on the Island, particularly with Lilydale. I mean, people can only tolerate for so long one enterprise getting assistance and the other one trying to slug it out and survive in the marketplace.

If there was ever a classic example of the difference between Socred enterprise and free enterprise, it's this whole situation. Socred enterprise, quite frankly, is what we're seeing happen with Fatt's. We're seeing a $1.5 million provision that was applied for in October 1985 and granted in September 1986, which provided assistance to Fatt's to the detriment of Lilydale. Then you have Lilydale trying to slug it out from October '86 until this December, in effect in a losing market; prepared to lose money; recognizing that it has an obligation to poultry processors on Vancouver Island; prepared to stick it out on the Island and behave like a good corporate citizen and not come to government for money; and prepared to play within that marketplace. Then we have Socred enterprise, through an additional $500,000 in loan guarantees provided to Fatt's and 50,000 birds being, I guess ultimately voluntarily — although the circumstances of that are interesting — directed to Fatt's, and now Fatt's is not able to perform on that.

The sensible thing for a free enterprise government to do, quite frankly, would have been to stay out of the marketplace and let the marketplace decide who can survive. But for reasons I don't quite understand, this government has chosen to provide assistance to one plant and literally to jeopardize an operation in my riding. I have to say that those people at Lilydale deserve a lot of credit for having stuck it out despite what this government was doing. I give Wally Berry and some of the people over there in Edmonton a lot of credit for having said they would try it one more time, with the hope that government wouldn't provide any assistance. I'll tell you, if you want to maintain a viable industry on this Island, then you have to make a decision to stop your interference in the marketplace and let these two rivals have it out with each other, to see if producers can support two operations.

I would really like to know if this decision was made exclusively by the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Agriculture; I want that information back from the minister. We're talking about a taxpayer expenditure of $500,000. I want to know from the minister what steps the government has taken to safeguard the taxpayers' interest. What steps have you taken to protect yourself in the event that Fatt's should go down? What have you negotiated to protect that $500,000 investment?

[11:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, we went through a lot of preamble to get to a question. If you want me to go into a number of things that have happened relative to Lilydale, and before that when it was Scott's, and if you want to go all the way back to Swan Valley Foods, I'll gladly go back to some of those — the $10 million or thereabouts that was spent on that. Where did it come from? How was it secured and guaranteed, and who paid the bill?

Secondly, you made some comments about unfair competition. I believe that to save the turkey industry in this province, prior to purchase, nearly $5 million was put into the facilities that Lilydale has. Is that wrong? That's the number of dollars, and you're saying that's unfair competition. When that happened, would that have been unfair competition, or would we have lost the industry? I think we have to look at opportunities for British Columbia to grow. In fact, in the chicken business, the consumption is growing quite healthily, and we're doing quite nicely, as I understand it.

I think the other question about the loan guarantee on behalf of the people.... I will not comment on Treasury Board's decision on how the loans are secured; that's the decision of Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister wants to get to what has happened in the past, Give me one example of any application that Lilydale ever made to government out of that operation in Langford since it took over, because it hadn't approached you until this whole situation happened with Fatt's. Sure, there were predecessor companies that sought assistance, but Lilydale was not connected with those companies at all. Lilydale never came to government with cap in hand; Lilydale wasn't the beneficiary of those funds.

Take a look at when those moneys were granted. What were the conditions in the marketplace when those funds were provided? Everybody in this province knows — and I was there with the minister when the conversation occurred — that the people in the industry came to Lilydale when Scott's was having trouble and said that we need in British Columbia a major financial player on the Island to hold up that plant. Lilydale had happily left the province. It was because of representations from the industry that it came in to save Scott's. Instead of asking for money from government to save Scott's, Lilydale put in millions of dollars of investment on its own into that plant in Langford. They never came and asked from government. They were never the beneficiaries of any of the money the ministers asked for.

I ask the minister: at the time those moneys were provided, what were the conditions in the marketplace in terms of competition? First of all, they were never provided to Lilydale. Secondly, they were provided in an atmosphere where one plant was receiving favourable treatment to the detriment of another. That's what's happening now, and those weren't the conditions then.

In those times, was the marketplace such as to have two plants going head-to-head slugging it out with each other, when they were both losing money? Then the government comes in to breathe life into one and says to the other: "Well, no, deep pockets would allow it to continue."

The circumstances of the marketplace and the conditions of the industry at that time were totally different. Above all, Lilydale was never a beneficiary

[ Page 7239 ]

of those funds in any direct sense of the word. Afterwards, when they were asked by the industry to come in and resuscitate it, they put a lot of their own money into it. All they're asking you is to butt out and allow the marketplace to decide now what's going to happen. All those things that happened in the seventies are immaterial; it's a red herring. The minister knows that.

But it's not a red herring to get into the matter of how we protect the taxpayers' interests. If you're saying that I've got to ask the Minister of Finance, I will. When his estimates come up, I'll ask him how he safeguarded taxpayers' interests. But you bet — on this side of the House we've got every obligation to say to the minister: "Okay, if you're lending someone X amount of dollars, or if you're going to provide a loan guarantee of $500,000 — which is just as good as lending money — then we've got an obligation to ask on what basis you're making that guarantee, and what steps you're taking to safeguard the taxpayers' interests if the company goes under."

If I had it, I wouldn't invest $500,000 in a company without making sure that it was viable, that there was a reasonable prospect of getting a return on my money, and that in the event the company defaulted, I was secured in an advantageous position so that I would get my money back. I don't think it's imprudent to ask those questions. Is the minister saying that he's not in a position to answer those questions, and the only person who can answer those questions is the Minister of Finance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of you and myself representing the riding of Vancouver South, I would like to welcome some ESL students from Churchill Secondary School who are here with their teacher, Mr. Martin. Churchill, of course, is one of the better schools in the whole school system. You're very fortunate to be there, and I welcome you all to Victoria, and I ask the House to join me in extending that welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: From this side of the House, we'd like to extend a warm welcome to the Winston Churchill students and advise them, if they don't already know, that it is the alma mater of the Leader of the Opposition. He was president of the students' council and a scholarship basketball player, and I'm sure he would wish to be here to welcome you today.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The question was where he would have to get the details. To the hon. member, we cannot reveal contractual arrangements between companies, as you well know. I don't think that that line of questioning will get you an answer, because those in fact are contracts.

Regarding the assumption you made earlier leading into your question about whether Lilydale directly benefited from funds put into Scott or whoever else or Pan Ready when they were having difficult times, the equipment that was purchased or altered in those plants was certainly a benefit. It may not have been a direct payment to them, but as a result of moneys spent in those plants, they benefited from it; there's no doubt about that.

You made a comment that there was no application by Lilydale to seek help. Why did I have a letter asking for $1 million?

MR. SIHOTA: I referred to that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: But you said they weren't seeking help. When a company is going to profit $11 million, I responded by saying: "Give me details of where you need the help." I have not yet heard from them.

MR. SIHOTA: Two points. First of all, on the benefit aspect of it, when Lilydale took the operation over, it was at market value. They paid a price for that equipment, so that's guff to put forward that type of an argument.

In terms of seeking help, I made it very clear to the minister that up until the situation with Fatt's this winter, Lilydale had never come to government cap in hand looking for money. I made that point, so the minister just didn't hear it, and for him to suggest that they're seeking help now flies in the face of the facts. We all know what happened: Lilydale sent a letter to the minister and that's it. Then they made a corporate decision to stick it out in this marketplace. But I tell you they weren't impressed by the actions of this government behaving in the fashion they have, and I can't say how much longer Lilydale will stay here, because I know they're constantly assessing their situation.

I tell you the minister can go a long way to helping that out by giving us assurances that no further benefits of this kind will be provided to Fatt's. We can't even get that out of the minister, because it's future policy. Hide behind it: if you don't have to answer the question, I'll write you a letter and maybe you'll have to answer it then.

If the minister says that I'm inquiring into contractual provisions, that may be so, but we're talking about public funds, and the public has the right to know how its funds will be safeguarded. I don't think it's a radical principle. It's simply asking the minister: "What steps have you taken to assure us that the $500,000 investment will be recouped in the event that the company doesn't survive?" Right now the market conditions in chicken are pretty good, but at some point they're going to turn down, as they traditionally have, and that's when the test of this guarantee will really be measured.

Again, I don't want to know all the specific contractual language, but I want to know: have we got an equity interest in some shares? Have we got some preferential shares? Have we got some ability

[ Page 7240 ]

to influence management decisions? Those are general things that the minister can talk about without getting into all the i's and t's of the contract. I want to ask the minister, and if it's not within his purview, if it falls within the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), I'll just take it up with him, but I want to know what steps you are taking to safeguard the taxpayer's interest.

[11:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As far as I understand, the arrangements are normal banking arrangements with the loan application. The fact of the matter is that the payments are being made. I think you were worried about the security, and you are quite correct: prices have been fairly strong. You are also well aware, I am sure, that we went through a period last fall when there was quite a price war, which was not necessarily generated by this particular operation or Lilydale, for that matter. It was mainly due to competition from the mainland moving product over here.

That did cause some grief for every one of them — not specifically this one. I think every one of them suffered in a trade war — if you like to call it that — by putting wholesale prices down around the 88-cent mark. I think everybody suffered from that. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with competition You made the statement earlier. That's fine, but some hurt came from it, in that normal prices would have been a little higher.

I do not have the details of the banking arrangements. As I understand it, the contractual arrangements are normal lending arrangements that would be secured for any loans.

MR. SIHOTA: So the minister says there was hurt in the industry from the competition which occurred. The point here is that Fatt's got a band-aid, and Lilydale was told to buy its own, when they both should have been told to get their own, or they both should have been provided with one. Some measure of equality of treatment would have been appreciated.

Normal banking arrangements. The minister says he doesn't have the conditions here. Again I will ask him: is he prepared to provide them to me, either later in estimates or, if I request them, in correspondence?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe that the details you are looking for would be within the Ministry of Finance.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. I will take up that matter with the Ministry of Finance, and I'll end my questions at this point, subject to the minister providing the other information, in terms of the recommendations that were forwarded. Maybe that can be procured over the lunch hour.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to canvass some of the minister's views on range management. Range management recently has been very much in the attention of those of us with some interest in range management. The Ministry of Forests is conducting a review of range management practice, which involves the Ministry of Agriculture, because the Ministry of Agriculture and in particular the people that it serves use the range extensively.

Besides that, we have had the Closkey report, in which there are a number of proposals which would mean considerable involvement by the Ministry of Agriculture. There have been responses and papers on range management floating around. There have been the proposals for tree-farm licences in which one wondered where the management of range would fit.

Before I come up with some specific questions, I would ask the minister if he would respond in a more general way to the questions of where he sees the Ministry of Agriculture fitting into range management plans and how he sees the interests of the agricultural people in the province being served best in new range management procedures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's perhaps mostly the responsibility of the Minister of Forests, but there's part of it that's relevant, so please proceed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The reference made to the Closkey report is certainly valid. I guess the best description of how we're handling this, through our ministry staff, etc., and with the Ministry of Forests, is consultation. A number of recommendations were made in the Closkey report. It relates to wildlife and, a point you're well making, how it impacts on the ranching community, the ability to compete for grazing lands and damage to crops. Are we going to prefer the elk or whatever is predominant, or is it going to remain an area where ranching can continue? I guess it's an ongoing discussion that we're having with the Ministry of Forests as to some of the studies that are being undertaken.

MS. EDWARDS: Your ministry and your staff are very intimately involved in the planning and the discussions over range use throughout the province, so I would have thought that you might have put forward some views from the ministry to the proposals for the new management plan that would come through the Ministry of Forests and the range management branch — which is no longer a branch, excuse me — in fact, their activities with connection to range management. I'm anxious to know how the minister feels that needs of the agriculture industry, the ranchers, the people who use the Crown range for forage, should be addressed. Are there any particular needs that should be addressed immediately? I could ask specific questions, but I would be very happy to hear first of all if the minister would make a more general statement of his views on range management and what he would like to see happening and his staff participating in for range management in B.C.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are really working with the ranching community, who certainly have a direct

[ Page 7241 ]

impact and on whom any decision in the future will have a direct impact. They are very much participating in discussions. We have discussed a number of issues related to what I stated in my opening comments on the problems we face between wildlife and the ranching community and the crops that are required to sustain both. Discussions are going on. We've talked on occasion about compensation programs, etc. No final decision has been made yet. I just have to tell you that the ranching community is directly involved in those discussions.

MS. EDWARDS: I suspect that you're not telling me that you are expecting the ranching community to take your views to the Ministry of Forests. My question is: what is your ministry's position that you are putting forward for the management of rangeland?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are letting the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, through the Kootenay Livestock Association, as I understand it, participate in those discussions. They will make recommendations to us. Our staff are in contact with them. We are not making an out-and-out statement at this point. All we have said is that we have some major concerns about the recommendations of the Closkey report. We are asking the ranching community to tell us where they would prefer our position to be in discussions with the Ministry of Forests. I think that's the most valid way you can have a position, once we know exactly where they are coming from in those discussions.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not talking only about the Closkey report, and I believe the minister is. The Ministry of Forests range people are doing a review of range management. I certainly know that the Ministry of Environment has made submissions to the Ministry of Forests, and I would have to guess, although I haven't seen, submissions made by the Ministry of Agriculture.... Have you made your views known to the range managers within the Ministry of Forests in relation to the range management review process?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, through the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

MS. EDWARDS: To get back to the Closkey report, I have examined the report with some interest. Some of the recommendations would require participation of the Ministry of Agriculture personnel, and I have some questions based on those recommendations. First of all, I bring your mind to the first recommendation, which suggested an overall regional plan be developed and that some of the participants would be Ministry of Agriculture. Included would be the allocation of forage for ultimate use by domestic and wild ungulates and a long-term strategy for land use.

I'm curious to know whether the minister would approve the participation of the ministry in an overall regional long-term plan.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, we are in fact participating. The Ministries of Forests, Lands, Environment and Agriculture are having discussions at the ADM level. So we are directly involved.

MS. EDWARDS: The second recommendation of Mr. Closkey was that the particular plan be based on input from coordinated range management plans. They would be the basis; they would be utilized to prepare an overall plan. Is that recommendation one the minister agrees with? Would he agree that the coordinated range management plans that exist in the area should be used as the basis for an overall regional long-term plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS: The third recommendation involves a number of ministries being involved in the implementation of such a plan, and not just, as far as range is concerned, the Ministry of Forests, I presume. It doesn't say so specifically, but if that's who currently implements the management of range, does the minister agree that his ministry would be involved in implementing a long-term plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I have to commend the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) for the effort they have undertaken to discuss these issues jointly with Lands, Environment and Agriculture. The Minister of Forests has seen the value of input from other sectors, and I commend him for it. I think we are participating in a very positive mode. We're trying to help by looking not only at forestry but at the environment, lands and agriculture. It's a coordinated effort to try to resolve all the issues. I think the Minister of Forests has done the right thing in involving those four sectors.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm trying to match the chairman's expectations and find out whether in fact the Minister of Agriculture would be agreeable to putting forward money to implement range management plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that's out of order. You have to stay within the administrative responsibilities, and range really falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. Just word the question differently, and you can solicit the answer you want.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, you didn't tell me whether you would agree that the Ministry of Forests could bear some of the responsibility for implementing range plans. That would, I presume, involve some expenditure of money on the part of your ministry.

[11:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think the hon. member's assumption is correct: the Ministry of Forests is involved. We do have a couple of FTEs working in range management areas — establishing the type of

[ Page 7242 ]

grasses that should be grown, etc. — and working towards range management.

MS. EDWARDS: The Closkey report recommends that a research program be initiated to investigate interactions among cattle producers, elk producers, forage quality and so on. Does the minister believe that this kind of research should be done? If so, will there be some response from the ministry to that recommendation?

MR. RABBITT: I just want to spend a few moments today on some remarks that were addressed to the minister yesterday and entered into the record, dealing mainly with the Agricultural Land Commission. I will quote a few remarks that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) made yesterday. He said: "One can't blame a farmer for wanting to have his or her land removed from the land reserve. I certainly don't blame someone for trying to reap that windfall benefit, particularly in light of the fact that it's more and more difficult to make a living by farming." He goes on to say that the original purpose of the agricultural land reserve was to tax away the private benefit to the farmer if he or she was successful in getting land removed from the land reserve. He goes on: "They simply would not make a dramatic windfall profit." And further: "...to take away that tremendous temptation and that dramatic windfall profit that they would receive if the land was removed."

The reason I want to spend a moment on this is that there is a philosophical difference here. First of all, I want to ask: why is there a profit? I will tell you why there is a profit. It's because there is a difference between the value of the farmland and its value as developable property. Why is there a difference? That value is there because of the end result. But, you know, that ownership by the rancher or farmer existed prior to the agricultural land reserve and the commission being established. When that right was taken away in 1973 by the NDP government, there was no compensation to those farmers or ranchers The NDP stole those rights and never compensated them one red cent.

That's a bad policy, and it's a policy that has the potential of hurting every rancher and every farmer in my constituency. I want the hon. members to know that I'll fight that policy with every ounce of energy that this little body has, because it's a concept of a socialist nature that is not for the benefit of all British Columbians. In all seriousness, we have to get some of these drugstore cowboys from the urban areas to understand what the real values of the farming community are all about.

MS. EDWARDS: As I was saying to the minister, the Closkey report recommended some research on the particular area that was being investigated. I would like the minister to tell me whether he approves of that recommendation and whether it would be supported by his ministry. I would add, in case he feels he hasn't got enough yet to answer, that the next recommendation is that the Point V Bar B Ranch be maintained in the ownership of the Crown and be included in that research project. Could I have an answer from the minister on those two recommendations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I guess you can research things to death. I don't believe we need to do any more research. We should get on with resolving the issues. Recommendations could come forward for studies and research for goodness knows how long, I suppose. I'm more concerned that we get on with addressing the issues rather than continuing In the research mode.

MS. EDWARDS: As far as the Point V Bar B Ranch is concerned, does that mean that you would not agree with the recommendation that it stay with the Crown?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I did not say that.

MS. EDWARDS: Is the minister willing to tell us what his feeling is about the Point V Bar B Ranch, which is a very integral part of the range system in that area?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I will not comment on that until I see specific details of the proposal. I don't have the Closkey report right in front of me, but I would be happy to research it a little more and at some time in the future provide an answer.

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps that explains why the minister objects so strongly to further research in an area where research is probably well needed.

I would like the minister to give me an idea of how he feels about the level of numbers of wildlife and cattle. In the Closkey report again, you may recall that he recommended that the current levels remain the way they are until this regional plan we're talking about is implemented. Does the minister agree with that recommendation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We're still working on the numbers that were presented. I think there are an awful lot of elk, quite frankly; in fact, there has been some moving of elk around the province to enhance some areas. I think there are a lot of elk in the Kootenays now. I think what we really have to look at is: is there going to be coexistence between ranching and environmental concerns, relative to the enhancement of elk? We have to address that. The numbers are becoming very large on the elk side.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I gather from that that the minister is saying he would not agree with that recommendation as far as the elk are concerned. He thinks that the elk numbers should go down, and he does agree with the other numbers. I'll take that as

[ Page 7243 ]

his answer unless he corrects it. Certainly there is an elk and cattle conflict in the area.

One of the other proposals from the Closkey report is that a wildlife damage fund be established. He recommends a whack of money out of the Ministry of Agriculture for that. I would like the minister to respond to me on the proposal Mr. Closkey made for this wildlife damage fund, and fairly specifically on the amount of the fund. He recommends $100,000, of which the Ministry of Agriculture would bear half. I believe you're probably aware of the procedure anyway. Would you please respond to that proposal.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The recommendations of the Closkey report, as reported, are quite true. But whether it should be a fifty-fifty sharing or what proportion, and whether it's from the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture.... There could be some argument back and forth about whose responsibility it really is, and where in fact the encroachment is. Should the cost be borne solely by Environment? Should it be shared among others? No matter which way you look at it, it is all taxpayers' dollars. The point being considered is compensation or fencing. How do we deal with a number of those issues? Those are the things we have to address.

I don't think there's any argument from me or my staff. We realize the problem is out there. As for resolving it, that would be future policy. We'll make those decisions at the appropriate time when that report is fully understood.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the minister is avoiding the issue. In fact, you're saying that you don't agree for some reason or other — reasons you don't give — that there are too many elk. But then you're willing to say that there are too many elk and that in fact, somebody.... I'm not sure this is what you're saying, because you were fairly careful in stating someone would have to decide who was encroaching on whom, without saying whether you believed it goes one way or the other. You also didn't respond on whether you thought it was a reasonable proposal and whether in fact you're considering taking up the recommendation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I guess you can try all the leading questions in the world. If the hon. member has the answer, would she like to reveal it, please.

MS. EDWARDS: I take it the minister hasn't made up his mind.

Recommendation No. 17 is a recommendation establishing wildlife management areas in some of the areas where there has been particularly difficult forage access for wildlife. Certainly Pickering Hills is one of those areas. I can recognize that. Would the minister respond to the proposal of recommendation 17, that in fact there be five wildlife management areas set up? I'm particularly interested in this, because some of the ranchers in our area believe that would automatically give preference to wildlife. Wildlife managers say that that is not the case, and certainly experience would indicate that's not necessarily the case. There are some who believe it does, but many who believe it doesn't. Would the minister make some comment on his response to that particular recommendation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is under consideration. We are consulting with the ranching community. A decision will be made shortly, as I understand it. The ministry staff are working with recommendation 17, and the consultations are going on with the ranching community.

MS. EDWARDS: In dealing with range issues, have you considered in a broad, general way putting together a series of goals and objectives for what you want from the British Columbia Crown range which would perhaps make it much easier to do some range planning, if we ever get an inventory.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think that's part and parcel of the discussions that have been going on. We have had a position on range management and range use in the past. The discussions with the four ministries continue. You can't do it in isolation. You have to realize that the resource is not unique to one particular ministry. Each ministry will reveal its concerns on range management. We are working very strongly, and we have had positions in the past relative to our opinion of range management and the use of the resource.

MS. EDWARDS: The question was very specifically: is the Ministry of Agriculture willing to lay out your goals and objectives, so that when you put them all together we at least know what the ministry's goals and objectives are?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. As I stated earlier, those are part of the discussions that are going on with the cattle community. Once those decisions are made, they will be revealed. We will not do it in isolation. We will use the consultative process with the industry that is affected.

MR. G. HANSON: We're going to shift now into the primeval soup whence we all came and talk about fisheries. It's not a happy story, really, as you look at the statistics over time and what is happening through mismanagement and neglect at the federal level and inattention at the provincial level.

[11:45]

The first item is clearly the high-seas driftnet fishery. I don't know why the Canadian government has been such a jam tart on this whole area. They're arguing that as the waters warm, Japan can move its driftnet fishery further north. Don't these people know that the oceans of the world are warming? They seem to be warming at an alarming rate, a rate that was unexpected. Just recently there were accounts

[ Page 7244 ]

that the estimates have been far beyond what people have expected. Whether it's linked with C02 gases or whatever, the oceans of the world are warming. The argument that they go further and further north to follow the squid.... They'll be right up into Alaskan waters in the exclusive economic zone.

There's no reason why the high-seas driftnet fishery shouldn't be absolutely stopped in its tracks. The insatiable appetite for marine food that exists in the world now is reflected in the prices of our own commodities — salmon, herring, etc. Out of a fleet of over a thousand vessels carrying on this kind of a fishery in those international waters with groups that are not within that commission — Korea, Taiwan — and with Japan, U.S. and Canada as signatories to that international commission agreement, there are 47 observers allowing them to go farther north, cleaning the ocean out. There are people who think that whole pink salmon runs that were supposed to appear in the north coast and central north coast region of B.C. were scooped by the high-seas driftnet fishery; that we could lose entire salmon runs in one evening in this international waterway.

I say again, Canada seems to be your international jam tart: if somebody is going to roll back on their round heels it's this country, and it can't go on, because our fishery is at stake. New Zealand deplores the situation. They're trying to exert pressure to have this stopped. The United States is concerned about it. Yet we're allowing Japan to move 2 degrees farther north come July, and then an additional 2 degrees north to 46 degrees latitude in August. If that isn't a signal of weakness or an inability to communicate with Pacific Rim neighbours on what will ultimately be a global resource of fish runs that emanate from our streams.... These runs are stolen in this high seas theft of fish resources — salmonid resources, steelhead. It's estimated that over 10, 000 steelhead of B.C. origin are scooped out of that waterway. Now scientists at the federal level in the DFO and others are saying that maybe we're losing entire pink salmon runs from the north coast.

It's a problem of international scale, and it deserves an international response, a serious response, with our trading partners. Highest-level discussions should be taking place to establish a moratorium on the high-seas driftnet fishery. It should be stopped. That is one serious item in our fisheries.

We now have a growing awareness of the impact of oil spills. We had an oil spill late last summer, or in the early fall, and the response time from this province, due to a lack of communication or whatever with the authorities in Washington State and the federal representatives of the United States.... I think the time has come for us to have a joint crisis operation with the Americans, where we have an office established at the provincial and federal level with Americans and Canadians who could give an immediate report on any possibility of a crisis in terms of an oil spill or leak.

We should be working jointly on a daily basis, in an office under the same roof, monitoring any activity and having a response priority — priority one, two, three, four — depending on the scale, the location, etc. If we've learned anything from Grays Harbor, if we've learned anything from Valdez, it's that the companies themselves will not police it adequately. They can't respond adequately or in time.

Those initial hours are crucial, so we should have a joint arrangement with our American friends so that a federal official could pick up the phone and immediately talk to the minister at the federal level, and a provincial employee could immediately pick up the phone and say, "An accident has occurred, " with none of this business of phone calls to people who are unavailable because they are in meetings or to someone who is away in Washington at meetings, or time zone differences, etc. There must be an immediate capability to respond on this coast, or else we are going to kiss off our precious fish resources. It's as simple as that. I'd like the minister to take that suggestion as a serious one. I think the Americans would grab at it. We should set up a joint working group on a daily basis for immediate response to the highest level in the country.

I am critical of the response time, with respect to the fisheries, that occurred on the Long Beach spill. The long-range impact of what the contamination will be in terms of shellfish and so on is really not fully understood. It can be dismissed and one can say that over time it will break down, etc., etc., but people know that the residues of these heavy oils are very persistent in the environment. That's why the initial response time to clean up as best as possible and curtail any kind of aftereffect is vital.

It wasn't long ago that we used to think of ourselves as pristine British Columbia with our clean ocean waters, and now we're finding, every day, things that impact that minister's ministry. Pulp mills, because of the process here, because of the desire to have a certain brilliance in the paper, are using chlorine bleach, and we're finding that that leaves a residue of toxic materials in the ocean that persist in the environment, for half-lives that we don't fully understand.

The marine environment of our province is degrading. We have more raw sewage, more chemicals and more oil being spilled on a constant basis. The losers are our fish resources and our very sensitive shellfish. The shellfish are extremely sensitive. I know the minister's officials are very aware of the level of tolerance of filter-feeding organisms that accumulate toxic materials within their systems, and of the impact that has, particularly — and I've raised it before in this House — on the native community that relies heavily on shellfish and finfish for their diet and many coarse fish that tend to be showing high concentrations of dioxins, furans and other things that seem to be derived from pulp mill effluent.

In other jurisdictions they've converted to oxygen and other means of cleaning and bleaching the pulp. We're slow in that. We've got to get that turned around fast, because there's something about the chlorine molecule: it's like a fish hook or something. It's something that is damaging to the environment.

[ Page 7245 ]

It's man-made. Carbon-based organic systems have difficulty with the chlorine molecule — pentachlorophenols, polychlorinated biphenyls, things that are derived from the petroleum industry.

Mr. Chairman, the theme of my presentation in the House today to the minister is to say we have some very serious problems: the high-seas fishery, as I've mentioned; the degree to which the pulp mills and our forest industry are polluting; the impact of our logging practices on stream enhancement, on stream capabilities to produce the fish; the difficulties of oil spills; the response capability that is simply not in place in terms of what should be there; and the fight that exists between the different sectors within the fishing community,

Mr. Chairman, I see that we're rapidly coming to the noon time, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.