1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 887 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order Mr. Phillips. Standard of dress in the House — 887

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 887

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44) Hon. Mr.

Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 888

Debt Collection Act (Bill No. 48) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first

reading — 888

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act (Bill No. 100) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 888

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act (Bill No. 49) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 889

Committee of supply: Department of Agriculture estimates Hon. Mr. Stupich — 889

Mr. Williams — 889

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 892

Mr. Smith — 893

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 896

Mr. Smith — 900

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 900

Mr. Wallace — 901

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 905

Mrs. Jordan — 906

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 907

Mrs. Jordan — 907

Mr. Brousson — 909

Mr. Lewis — 910

Mr. Chabot — 910

Hon. Mr., Cocke — 911

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 911

Mr. Phillips — 915

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 918

Mr. Phillips — 919

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 920

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to make two announcements if I might. The first is

that I am sure the House would like to join with me in

extending our congratulations and the congratulations of the

Government of British Columbia to Karen Magnussen from North

Vancouver who has just won the World Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Government and the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will be extending the

wishes of the House to Miss Magnussen — and for all the people

of B.C., of course.

The second one is: with us in the gallery today are 35

students from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. They

are here today with their teachers, Mr. Boldt and Mr. Davis. I

would like the House to join with me in making them feel

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader of the official

Opposition.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I

understand today is a rather important day in your life. I

understand that 39 years ago today you came into this world,

not as a Speaker, but as a crier. (Laughter).

HON. MEMBERS: Hear ye. Hear ye. Hear ye.

MR. RICHTER: As it is obvious to you, everyone here today in

the House is most happy to congratulate you and wish you the

very best wishes on this birthday — even though it is a "Jack

Benny" birthday.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we join

in that felicitation to you and your birthday and I hope you

will bear in mind that you are only young twice.

MR. SPEAKER: The same age as you as a matter of fact.

(Laughter). The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I would like the House to join with me in welcoming four teachers from the Coquitlam

riding: Mr. Jack Thomas, principal of the Leigh Elementary School, Tom Sitter,

Rod Cornelius and Len Bryce.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR, D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to point out to the House, and particularly to

the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), that

Miss Magnussen and her family are residents of North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome students from grade 11 in Oak Bay Senior

Secondary with their teacher, Miss Sherlock.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a

group of students from the Senior Secondary School at Port

McNeill who are here today with their teachers, Mr. Parker and

Mr. Burleson. Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is still a

very difficult trip for the people in the north end to make

down here and they look forward to visiting the galleries. I

would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome Mrs. Elizabeth Gollata, a long time resident

from the Shuswap country and mother-in-law to our Member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, very

briefly, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a

number of mayors and other members of the executive of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities who are in Victoria for a couple

of days. A number are in the galleries this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order. Last night you informed the House that the

Members could wear whatever they considered their own good

taste.

MR. SPEAKER: Not quite like that. More of what

[ Page 888 ]

I considered my good taste.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wish you would outline for the House,

Mr. Speaker, what you consider the proper mode of apparel in

this House because I don't think it should be left up to the

individual. It is the honour of the House and the decorum of

the House and of all the Members in the House at stake, not the

taste of an individual. I would like you to outline for the

House, in black and white, what you consider proper apparel in

the House. I think it is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not running a day-care centre, right

now.

MR. PHILLIPS: This legislature is not a day-care centre — it's the Legislature of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that you should outline for the

Members in this House what is proper apparel in this House.

Your comments last night leave a lot to be desired as far as I

am concerned, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would suggest to the Hon. Members that

if you are going to put anything in standing orders about what

you wish the apparel to be in this magnificent and dignified

chamber and with the world looking on; if you need someone to

tell you how to dress, then I say put a resolution on the order

papers setting out what you think proper dress is and let the

other Members decide. Don't ask the Speaker to do it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not in a position by my authority vested

in me, in my opinion, to tell you what you should wear. That is

for you to decide. I have already said that last night and I've

said it today. If you want another method of doing it, I

propose the method that you use. In the meantime, Mr. Clerk,

would you carry on with business.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in your office and

there should be some direction.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MINERAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith

transmits a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Mineral

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I say for the benefit of the Hon. Member that

it was decided by resolution of the House that this method be

used unless there was some strenuous objection in a particular

bill.

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON' MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

DEBT COLLECTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Debt Collection Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government

House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 48 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.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE EVIDENCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Evidence

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 100 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.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CORONER'S ACT

[ Page 889 ]

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Coroner's

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 46 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.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SMALL CLAIMS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Small Claims

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 49 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.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Department of Agriculture, $54,968.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I would just

point out, Mr. Chairman, it is the second time of asking. Apart

from that, I've just had handed to me the 1972 report of the

Department of Agriculture.

I haven't had a chance to review it. I have no idea what's

in it. If it would help the Ministers at all, I'm quite

prepared to leave a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to

have it, it's fine with me. They could catch me off guard. I

don't have another copy. My Deputy doesn't have a copy with

him. If anybody wants to get this now, it's here. I just

thought I'd announce that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

just one question arising out of the remarks of the Hon.

Minister. That report has not yet been tabled in the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's right. It hasn't been. It's just a

courtesy. The trouble is that by the time it is, Mr. Member,

possibly vote 3 will be passed.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what concerns me. I don't think you

should hand it to us until you have tabled it. Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if it would be appropriate for the Minister to table the

report now and then we can look at it during the afternoon.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting I table

it now?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there copies available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not possible to table it

in committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there copies available, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I raise some question about your

dress. I question whether you are appropriately attired as

chairman of the committee. Obviously, your tastes are somewhat

different from mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I feel that the dress is appropriate on this,

the occasion of the birthday of the Speaker of the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I must say that your dress is symbolic of that

which is used for other ceremonies, usually at the end of one's

life. (Laughter). I'm certain that was not your intention.

Perhaps before the afternoon is over, we can provide you with

the appropriate boutonniere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Also ceremonies at the beginning of one's

marriage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: That was a vicious attack upon the women of

our province, Mr. Chairman, for you to suggest that there's any

comparison between the nuptial event and a funeral. (Laughter).

I suggest that you will take the appropriate opportunity to

correct the record in that regard.

However, we are dealing with the estimates of the

[ Page 890 ]

Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). I have a

couple of matters to raise with him and a couple of questions

that perhaps he might care to answer.

Last evening as the debate was closing, the Hon. Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) raised with the Minister the subject

of the Nicomekl and Serpentine flats, in particular the problem

that the farmers in that area have with an excess of water. I

trust that the Hon. Minister could indicate to us what the

policy of his department will be and what programmes the

farmers of this province may expect to see brought about which

will help to cure that particular situation and similar

situations which arise in other areas in this province.

I trust that the Minister can perhaps also indicate to what

extent his department and the Department of Water Resources

will join together in the solution of these problems. I have

already spoken with the Deputy Minister of Water Resources

concerning the Nicomekl and Serpentine. He is aware that the

proper drainage of that area can indeed provide us with

agricultural land perhaps capable of supplying, if not all,

then the major portion of some of the vegetable requirements of

this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, and western Canada as well. It is a

highly productive area. All that it requires is some very

special attention. The same can be said, however, of other

agricultural areas.

One in my constituency which is a matter of considerable and

continuing concern is the Pemberton Valley. The Pemberton

Valley is already a highly productive agricultural area,

renowned throughout the continent and the world for the

production of high-grade seed potatoes. The Hon. Minister is

aware of the prizes that have recently been awarded to farmers

in that area. The Pemberton Valley has not only the flood

problem at certain times of the year but, strangely enough, at

other times of the year it has a serious irrigation problem.

Therefore, it is a two-way flow of water which concerns

them.

Heretofore, Mr. Chairman, the government programmes that

were offered to farmers facing drainage and irrigation

difficulties were ones which thrust major expenses upon the

farming community. There isn't a Member in this House who has

taken the time to look into the economics of farming in this

province who does not recognize that the farmer is the one who

needs the help and yet who is least able to pay for the

drainage and irrigation systems which will make his land

increasingly productive.

Heretofore, programmes, whether under ARDA or otherwise, have always been such

that the farmer could never afford to make his contribution. We have diking

districts and they don't have the money. It all comes back to a charge upon

the individual landowner, the individual farmer; and he is already struggling

for economic survival.

Therefore, my specific question to the Minister in this

regard is: in the forthcoming months, may we expect to have

from him a positive programme with respect to the Nikomekl and

Serpentine, and secondly, a positive programme which will make

available to the farmers of this province, within the limits of

their financial ability, drainage and irrigation

facilities?

I think that if we do this that we will go a long way

towards the improvement of the productive side of agriculture.

Now that of course is only one of the many steps that must be

taken.

I fully appreciate that the Minister is just beginning the

long and difficult task towards the eventual relief of the

farming community from the economic problems that face them and

more importantly, Mr. Chairman, on the long task of putting the

farming sector of our province in a better position to supply

the continuing, and indeed, increasing need for foodstuffs in

order for us to be able to withstand the impact of an over

abundance of imported food products.

So saying, I would like to direct the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, through you, to two other matters which I think are

basic to the survival of the farming community and assisting us

to better able withstand some of the impact that we have from

imported farm products.

If I can just preface these remarks with a statement, and

remind the Minister that if we do not make ourselves as nearly

self-sufficient in the production of foodstuffs as we can, then

increasingly we must rely upon the production of other

jurisdictions — other jurisdictions in Canada, other

jurisdictions in other parts of the world. When we place

ourselves in that position, we create a situation where other

people in other lands, subject to other laws, are able to

control the amount of food which we will have to eat. This

would be a disaster if we ever found ourselves in this

position.

Mr. Chairman, in one sense, it is only a reflection of the

problem we find with other resources. We've had debates in this

House about the so-called energy crisis, the finite petroleum

resource and the problems that's creating. Well the same thing

happens with food. If we place ourselves in the position where

we can no longer supply ourselves, then we will face a

crisis.

For the farming community and for the production of

foodstuffs, we really come down to two fundamental concerns.

One is production, and the other is marketing.

We've been told in the past, Mr. Chairman, and I would like

the Minister to comment on this — we've

[ Page 891 ]

been told in the past, particularly by the former Minister

of Agriculture, that the farms in the Province of British

Columbia have substantially increased their efficiency and that

it was no longer appropriate for Members in this House to

question the efficiency of the productive sector of our farming

community. I would like to know whether the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) agrees with that conclusion.

Because it would seem to me from the studies that took place

two years ago in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture

that we indeed were falling far short in British Columbia of

providing anything like the quantity of foodstuff which we

require in some commodities.

Now I readily appreciate that there are some farm products

in sufficient supply that we're able to export them. But in

some of the basic commodities, potatoes is one, we fall far

short of fulfilling the demand within this province. Therefore

I would like to know from the Minister if his assessment of the

situation is the same and what plans he may have to improve the

productive segment of the farming community.

Now it's easy to simplify and suggest that production and

marketing are all that needs to concern the agricultural

community. I don't mean to suggest that it is that easy.

If I may turn to deal with the other aspect of the twofold

problem, marketing, and direct a couple of questions to the

Minister in that regard.

Yesterday the Minister indicated that an examination was

being made into the availability of our farm products for

export. Certainly that is a very commendable exercise upon

which the Minister is engaged.

But truly I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would

indicate where in his estimates he discloses staff positions

for people who are skilled in marketing economics. I don't see

any market research personnel taken into the Department of

Agriculture. I don't see any real attention being given to the

economic studies that must be made if we are to embark upon any

significant export programme.

If we are to do such a thing and embark upon an export

programme, we have the strange anomaly of farming groups coming

to the Legislature and saying: "Please assist us to withstand

the influence of low cost produce being imported into this

country," and at the same time hearing the Minister of

Agriculture suggesting that we can take our produce and go

abroad and sell it.

If the price of produce from our farms is so high that it is

influenced by cheap imports, then it seems rather incredible to

me that those same farmers could turn around and go into the

world export market and compete against those same cheap

foodstuffs produced in other jurisdictions. Therefore some very

careful analysis and review must be made by highly qualified people. I would like the Minister to indicate, if

he would, where in the vote in his department allowance is made

for personnel who can conduct this study.

Now on the matter of production, and making goods for our

own needs, I would also like the Minister to indicate to what

extent his department is prepared to support, in a very active

way, programmes for the consumption by British Columbians of

foodstuffs which are grown in this province.

I know there is one item in one of the votes for an

estimated expenditure of $200,000 in the forthcoming fiscal

year for that purpose. I would like the Minister to indicate

how those moneys might be spent.

One of the most exciting presentations that was made to the

agricultural committee two years ago was from the produce

manager of one of the major retail companies in British

Columbia. This produce manager had been many, many years in the

business. As a matter of fact, his experience in the produce

business went back to the days when we used to have Ashcroft

tomatoes and Ashcroft potatoes and many other products which

have since disappeared from the markets in British Columbia — products which were outstanding in quality and which had a

renowned name.

I remember as a very young boy coming to this province from

the prairie, my father and mother talked to me about Ashcroft

potatoes as something they looked forward to enjoying. They

didn't mean much to me then, but here we are today and you

know, where are the Ashcroft potatoes? The Hon. Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was a member of the

agricultural committee which dealt with this very problem, and

he knows what the situation is. The same applies with varieties

of fruit in this province. They've completely disappeared. They

were produce which were hallmarks by way of name in this

province, and yet they've gone.

This produce manager spoke highly of the kind of product

that we can produce in British Columbia, and which we can sell

in British Columbia. There may not be sufficient, Mr. Chairman,

to export, but we can produce. People who come to British

Columbia will look for particular products from particular

areas of this province, and we can again begin to sell "B.C.

grown" in the real sense of the word.

As I say, we used to talk about the Ashcroft potato. It was

a delicious, delectable potato. Now you go into the stores,

what do you see? The big sale item is Idaho potatoes. What's so

great about Idaho potatoes? The one thing that's so great about

them is the manner in which they are promoted. They put them in

a little fancier bag, and it looks a little better, When you

consider that the housewife, the shopper who goes to the market

is only able to judge the product that he or she will buy by

looks — that's the

[ Page 892 ]

only chance you've got. You can't taste it. If you want to

cheat a little bit, you can feel it. But really it is the

visual impression that determines whether the shopper will buy

one product or the other product.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Price also interferes as well. But really the

impression that's made upon the shopper is what you see

visually. Therefore, it is the visual presentation of British

Columbia products which will really encourage us to buy B.C.

grown products. We had public relations programmes put on with

signs and so on. I really don't think that newspaper

advertisements or signs in stores have that great an impact.

But if we put the product before the shopper in the most

attractive way and at the same time we carry on an advertising

programme which makes B.C. potatoes something better visually

than any other kind, then I think we will really be getting

down to the business of encouraging the use of home-grown

products.

This brings me to the last question I want to pose to the

Minister at this time. We have in this province a series of

marketing boards. I'd like to have the Minister indicate

whether or not he is looking at these marketing boards to see

whether they are truly fulfilling the role of marketing.

Everyone knows that the marketing boards are maintained for the

sake of the producer. They're really groups of producers who

get together and regulate the flow of their product into the

market in a way so that there will be the fairest possible

return to all the producers. How fair that return might be is

something which hopefully we will have the opportunity to

examine in committee.

But I think that the name is wrong. When we met two years

ago in the agricultural committee with groups from various

marketing boards, I proposed the same questions to each one.

Each one I asked, when they came before the committee, what

their budget was for the promotion of the product which it was

their responsibility to market. Time after time they either

didn't know the figure at all, and promised to get it or, when

they did produce the figure, it was very low.

Therefore, I think that we should either change the marketing board

concept and the legislation which surrounds it to make those boards

more concerned with the marketing aspect of their ability. Indeed, if

we can't do that, we should responsibly change the names of those

boards from marketing boards to producer boards. Because this is really

what they are. They are groups of producers. I am concerned, Mr.

Chairman, that when production is finished they consider their

responsibility to be virtually finished.

Now there are some very noteworthy exceptions. In the tree

fruit industry and in the turkey growers, they are doing outstanding work in the promotion and

marketing of their products. As a matter of fact they're doing

such a good job in the question of tree fruits that I see the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has raised some

questions as to whether they're not going too far.

In any event, I think that throughout the whole range of

farm products, if the marketing boards are not going to pay a

greater attention to the marketing problems, ensuring that the

product that they take from the farmer passes through the board

and is placed on the shelves of the stores of this province and

is well marketed, then we should look at the legislation and at

their responsibilities and either require them to improve their

attitudes or replace them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): With respect to

the Nikomekl-Serpentine area, this area is of prime concern to

the Department of Agriculture. We recognize the value of this

land for farming purposes. I certainly appreciate the implicit

word from the Member, if I can take it that way, that he

intends to support the programme of the Government to preserve

farmland. We think this is an extremely important area to

preserve and we're going to do everything we can to preserve it

for future food production.

As far as controlling flooding and drainage, I think he

recognized that the federal government has quite a lot to do

with this. When it's possible to work out an arrangement with

our Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and with

the federal government so that the charge to the individual

farmers is at the minimum, as low as 10 per cent, this is the

best position we have been able to reach to this point.

If we're not able to go that route and have to go ARDA, then

the individual farmers are obliged to pay something like 1/3 of

the cost. So naturally we would prefer the best deal

possible.

Under the proposed commission, if I may mention it, of

course we'll be able to go even further than that. It may be

that that would be the route to go if the Members of the House

decide to support the move to establish a commission. The

commission will have the authority…Well, I am sure the

Members are familiar with that without my getting into the

details of the legislation.

What I really want to say in answer to your question is that

we recognize the importance of maintaining that particular

area. At the present it's a matter that would be better

discussed by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). Certainly this department will

do what it can to persuade the Minister of Lands, Forests,

and

[ Page 893 ]

Water Resources that it should be reserved for farming.

The importation of farm products of course is something that

does concern the producing sector of the economy. We're very

upset, for example, at the recent move in Ottawa to work

against that, i.e., to make it easier for people to import

particularly American produce.

We wish that there were some way of making stronger

representations to the government in Ottawa. If the Member

opposite has any friends in the Liberal group in Ottawa — we

have friends in the NDP group — and with his friends in the

Liberal group perhaps we can persuade them that they should not

be taking this particular direction, which is certainly working

against the interests of the farming community in this

province.

Farmers have improved their efficiency. I don't think there

is any question about that. I can recall selling eggs retail in

1951, when I was producing them and doing everything else and

finally retailing them — selling them door to door in 1951 at 83

cents a dozen. Now the price has never been as high since. Yet

the farmers today who are selling them at 50 cents a dozen are

doing better than I was. At that time the markup between

wholesale and retail would have been about 17 cents or 67 cents

producer price; now it's 50 cents. Yet through improved

efficiency on the part of the farmers, they have been able to

get their costs down to the point where they can make more

money producing them at a lower price.

I am not suggesting that they've reached the end by any

means. There are some areas where there could be tremendous

increases in efficiency. If we want to pursue that, then I'll

get more into the detail.

They have improved their efficiency; there is still room for

further improvements and there will be room, I am sure, for

some time to come — just as there is in every other sector of

the community, in every area of production or in every area of

manufacture or processing. Anything at all. Who can say that

we've reached the ultimate in efficiency in any direction?

Certainly I think the farmers would be the last to say that

they have reached the ultimate in efficiency in their own

particular production commodity group.

Market services. I would prefer that you asked specific

questions like that in the relevant vote. In the area of market

services, for example, the increased personnel are in vote 4,

the actual expenses of the market service itself. The detail of

the programme I would prefer to take under vote 6.

The actions of the marketing board and what they have accomplished, any discussion

of the marketing board, again I would prefer it if we could take it under vote

15. I'm not putting these things off. I would just prefer that under the Minister's

salary we talk more generally about things or about items that are not covered

in any of the specific votes; that we leave the specific matters, Mr. Chairman,

until we get to the appropriate vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to enter into the debate on the Department of

Agriculture estimates and to exchange a few ideas, both

philosophical and otherwise with the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich).

One of the first matters that I would like to bring to his

attention concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. I know this does

not come under his jurisdiction directly, but there is at odd

times during the year an occasion for all the Ministers of the

different provincial jurisdictions to meet, not only

collectively but with the federal Minister of Agriculture. I am

sure the position of the Canadian Wheat Board and the attitudes

that they express must be a topic of discussion at one time or

another.

What I would like to suggest to the Minister for his

consideration at the next meeting is this: In my opinion the

whole attitude of the Canadian Wheat Board toward what

constitutes surplus production of agricultural products,

particularly of wheat in Canada, and what we should really look

at as over-production, are actually two different things.

It seems ridiculous to me, Mr. Chairman, that the wheat

board gets very nervous any time that we have a few million

bushels of grain in storage. They immediately begin talking

about surplus production and the fact that we should perhaps

cut back on our wheat acreage or we should do something to

decrease the amount of grain produced by our nation.

The ridiculous thing it brings about is the fact we could be

faced with a disaster in our production at the same time that

countries which purchase our wheat face a disaster in their

production. We could very easily get into a position where we

would be embarrassed by not being able to even live up to the

commitments that we had made to foreign buyers of our grain

products. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that

we shouldn't even talk about surpluses until we have at least

500 million bushels of grain in storage at any one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what the farmers believe?

MR. SMITH: I would think that the farmers would be quite

happy to know that the federal government was not going to be

worried about wheat surpluses or a reduction in price of grain

until they had at least 500 million bushels of grain in surplus

storage. The way the production of grain goes today and the

[ Page 894 ]

demand that we have been able to exploit on the world

market, we could very easily place ourselves in a position

within one year, because of bad circumstances in our own

farming economy and an excess demand from countries who face

similar crises, that we would not be able to supply even the

amount required to fulfil our contracts.

Therefore, a surplus of 500 million bushels in my opinion is

not a surplus. It is money in the bank, and it shouldn't be

reflected in a decreased price to the poor guy who is producing

wheat if we do happen to run something over 500 million bushels

of grain per year in storage throughout Canada, I would hope

that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would

consider that point of view when he is talking to the federal

Minister of Agriculture and through him to the Canadian Wheat

Board.

The problem of the farmer today, and we all admit it, is not

that he cannot produce gain. The problem of the farmer today,

whether it be grain production, fruit production, poultry

production or whatever, is that regardless of how much he

produces, the net return at the end of the year is still a

minus figure. Until we can overcome that particular problem,

you are not going to put the farming economy into a viable

position in the Province of British Columbia.

I think a lot of people have got to realize that somewhere

along the line, while they seem to be prepared to accept price

increases in almost every other commodity, they must be

prepared to accept price increases in the commodities that are

produced by the farmers, not only of British Columbia, but of

all of Canada. Certainly, no one seems to object too

strenuously to healthy salary increases to those people that

are in the labour force. If this is an accepted way of life,

then it should be equally an accepted way of life to give a

farmer a fair return for his efforts in producing the

agricultural products that we either consume in the Dominion of

Canada or export to some other part of the world.

I note from my records that when I spoke in the budget

debate, as a matter of fact in February, 1967, I was referring

to the farming economy of the Peace River country. At that time

I raised two main points that I thought had contributed greatly

to the farming communities. One of the first things that came

to my mind was the policy of B.C. Hydro to extend rural

electrification throughout as much of the province as possible

and the introduction of the subsidy programme which allowed

farming communities to receive the same benefit as a

closely-knit incorporated town or village.

That was one of the great plus factors in the life of the

farmer, and thankfully most rural communities in the Province

of British Columbia now have benefit of hydro power.

The second thing I pointed out was that the farmers, in the Peace River country

particularly, were to be complimented because they had stayed and developed

a new area — relatively new in terms of the farming economy of Canada. They

had a firm belief in the future. I suggested at that time that it was up to

us in this province to help their dreams become realities. The Minister, I am

sure, is aware of what I am leading up to. I am leading up to the crop disaster

of the last year in the Peace River country.

It seems ludicrous to me, Mr. Minister, that when the

farmers have an input of an average price of $50 per acre, and

that that input plus anything they might have received was

completely wiped out by a crop disaster, that this province

with all its resources and wealth, could not find it within its

means to pay those farmers a settlement of more than $3.75 per

acre. I have compared this figure to comparable settlements to

farmers that suffered severe damage in the Surrey area. We know

that that figure is $3.75 per acre in the Peace River country

and an average of $277 per acre for those farmers who were

flooded out in the Surrey area. What a discrepancy.

What I would like to explore with the Minister of

Agriculture is this: What is the difference? How do you justify

one scale of benefits for one part of the province and a much

lower scale of benefits for another part of the province? Is

not a complete crop disaster as disastrous and detrimental to

the farmer of the Peace River country as it is to a farmer in

any other part of the Province of British Columbia?

Is not his position the same regardless of the comparable

size of the farms? His position has got to be exactly the same

as if he loses his total crop, be it the Peace River country,

be it Vancouver Island, be it the Fraser Valley or wherever it

may happen in the Province of British Columbia.

It makes one wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the token payment,

which could very well result in a number of farmers going out

of the farming picture completely, is not another means of

returning their farmland to the Crown because they were not

able to pay the taxes that have accumulated in arrears.

Certainly there is a provision today that if they cannot pay

their taxes within a specified length of time, that land will

return to the Crown.

Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture and the

Government of this province to create a land bank through the

distress of farmers in the Peace River country? I would hope

that is not the policy of the Department of Agriculture or of

the Government of this province.

I would hope that the policy is fair and equitable treatment

to all farmers in the Province of British Columbia, regardless

of where they reside within this province. I would like the

Minister to comment, if he would, on where he stands on

collective bargaining and marketing in the Province of British

Columbia.

[ Page 895 ]

This is a matter that has been raised recently by the

farmers' union. I know that they have presented briefs to the

cabinet and to the other Opposition parties in this House.

I would like the Minister to comment on his position if he

is prepared to do so regarding the matter of collective

bargaining for farmers in the Province of British Columbia. If

he is in favour of it, how would he suggest it be accomplished

or what percentage of farmers does he feel should be in favour

of collective bargaining before such a referendum, if that was

the approach that was to be taken, would be put to the farming

community of this province?

I would also like him to consider this problem of the due

date on farm taxes, particularly when the due date falls at a

time when the farmers have not yet harvested their crops in

most parts of the Province of British Columbia.

Would it not be possible to amend the statutes to put that

due date back to December 31 each year? We have all heard the

arguments in favour of retaining it where it's at, because it

brings the revenue into the treasury at a time when the people

of the province are demanding works programmes and so on.

But the due date is not compatible with the farming economy.

We've all heard that, yes. I admit that. It's not compatible

with the farming economy of the province. Perhaps, during a

time when the farming community generally has suffered

distress, this would be one means of helping them out without

really putting any great impost upon the Crown.

I'd like also to hear from the Minister his views on a farm

implement Act for the Province of British Columbia. There's a

matter that has been discussed in general terms by the Minister

himself in recent months. This is the idea of cooperative food

outlets in the Province of British Columbia. Is it the

Minister's intention to subsidize the operations of these food

outlets or subsidize in some manner the actual installation of

them in different locations throughout the Province of British

Columbia? If this is his position, how would he pay the subsidy

and from what source would the funds be derived?

In the north of this province, particularly in that area

around Fort Nelson, it is estimated that there are a million

acres at least of arable land which can be turned into

productive farmland. As a matter of fact, the previous

government had considered launching a programme up there on an

experimental basis to get a farm going. I'd like to know if the

Minister is going to continue that programme in the Fort Nelson

area — if that experimental farm will go ahead as it was

planned by the previous government.

I'd also like to know the Minister's position on the alienation of Crown land

by individuals who wish to get into agriculture in this province. Are you prepared

to allow them to lease land in the future, of which they will eventually become

the owners in fee simple? Certainly, when we have an area which potentially

could house thousands of farms — if you take a million acres as the arable potential

of Fort Nelson, there should be some incentive for people to go into the area.

We should find out what can be grown up there to the best

advantage. This is one of the reasons that I was very

interested in an experimental farm in that area. I think the

day is long past when we should ask individuals to go up into

an area like that on their own and invest all the money and

capital that they have, unless we can show them that there is

some future for them in the farming business in the Province of

British Columbia.

Is it the Minister's intention to do anything about

educational tax on farmland in the province? Does the Minister

intend to increase the promotion of B.C.-grown products on some

basis similar to the programme that was launched last year? Has

the Department of Agriculture, jointly with the industrial

development department, established a joint committee to study

disparities in both domestic and export freight rates in

Canada? If not, why not? Certainly. this was a recommendation

of the agricultural committee a year ago.

There are a number of other questions that I'll be putting

to the Minister during his estimates, probably on specific

votes. There's one more point that I'd like to raise before I

take my seat. That is the matter of your policy on veterinary

clinics in the province.

Many areas do not have any veterinary services. Part of this

is due to the fact that trained veterinarians are not failing

off the trees, by any stretch of the imagination. The other is

the fact that many veterinarians would like to establish in an

area if there were some means of setting up a clinic from which

they could operate.

I'm not suggesting that the province would have to own the

clinics. But I would like to know the Minister's policy with

regard to some type of support for veterinarians who wish to

establish in the rural areas of the Province of British

Columbia. Would he be prepared to consider some sort of

financial assistance, even if that were just low-cost loans to

them? Or is he prepared to consider the establishment of

clinics throughout the province?

At the present time the only clinics available on a

provincial basis, of course, are in the lower mainland. This

does not really help, except in an experimental way, the

veterinarians who live in northern B.C. or the Prince George

area or over the west coast or wherever they may be

located.

In our particular part of the country, the heavy emphasis is

still on the treatment of farm animals.

[ Page 896 ]

Therefore, when you have sick cows or horses or large bovine

species, it requires fairly good facilities to look after them

properly. It's an expensive proposition. Young veterinarians

particularly, who are just starting out in the business, would

like to feel that some sort of financial assistance might be

made available to them. From my discussions with them, they

have indicated that they would prefer long-term low-cost loans

rather than outright grants or having the provincial government

own the clinics.

I would like the Minister, when he has the opportunity, to

indicate his philosophy and perhaps the direction the

Department of Agriculture intends to take in the handling of

some of these matters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He may want to

leave so I'd better take him first.

Canadian Wheat Board, the question of surpluses: it's not

just the attitude of the wheat board; it's not just the

attitude of the provincial government. It's the attitude of the

federal government, of course; it's the attitude of the whole

Canadian people. It's an investment that the whole country has

to put in. The federal government has to be convinced first

that this is a good thing and then convince the people at large

that this is something that's worth supporting.

As far as the Department of Agriculture in B.C. is

concerned, the previous Deputy used to argue that we should at

all times have a billion bushels in storage — that this is

nothing to be alarmed about; that we should start at that

point.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I think you mentioned wheat. The

billion, I believe, was total storage. Of course, we have had a

good deal in excess of that on different occasions. Right now

it's getting very low. As you say, there's danger that we will

not meet our commitments. There's some concern that we're going

to have trouble meeting our internal needs, let alone

commitments to export.

Of course, all we can do, as you suggested, is make

representations to the federal government and try to convince

them that this should be longer range planning — that they

should not panic so quickly when there is a temporary surplus.

Of course, who can predict what happens in the rest of the

world? There are all these problems. Still, we have to look at

it and recognize that a billion bushels is not a large amount

of grain to have in storage.

As far as a fair return to the B.C. farmer — yes, I think

this is something we all subscribe to. When you were on this

side of the House and I was on that side,

I used to argue the same way. We are bringing in some

measures. We have introduced some already. We will be bringing

in further ones. We're listening as you make contributions

during this debate and other debates.

Hopefully, you will see an improvement in the return to

farmers in the not-too-distant future, in no small degree

related to the philosophy of the new Government. It's a matter

of working these things out and trying to improve the lot for

the primary producer in the Province of British Columbia. We're

definitely committed to that and are very anxious that you see

some early results.

The B.C. Hydro: their subsidy; their rural electrification

programme. I think there was ample opportunity to discuss that

when the Premier's estimates were up for discussions. I don't

think there's anything further that I want to contribute to

that.

Collective bargaining: well, of course, the NFU have made a

presentation in favour of collective bargaining. They've

suggested that we should introduce this legislation that would

then encourage them to go out and get 50 per cent support for

their programme before we go to the next step. Their support

currently is in a relatively small area of the province. I am

concerned that if we introduce legislation like this, it just

might not be all that acceptable. Maybe in the future it will

be. I don't know.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would prefer to see the

NFU get out into the rest of the province and make some impact

in other farming commodity groups and in other farming

communities before they come for enabling legislation that

would be specifically to help them organize.

I have nothing against them economically, politically,

organizationally or anything else. But before we introduce

legislation that other commodity groups might feel in some way

would work against their interests, I would prefer the NFU to

get out and talk to these other groups and get some measure of

acceptance.

That's not closing the door on it necessarily. They have

been talking to myself and to Members of the caucus. They have

made a presentation, I believe, to the agricultural committee

of the NDP caucus. I haven't had an opportunity to get up to

date on that. There's no closed door; but my feeling at the

moment is to go a bit slow on this.

The due date on farm taxes. Perhaps the Member has had a

change of heart or maybe we just didn't know previously that

when he was in the Government caucus he was pressing for this

change in the due date on farm tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 897 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will recall that I was absent with

leave for a period of three years and all kinds of things might

have been said in those three years. Of course, there was no

Hansard then during estimates, so even had I wanted to

keep up to date I would not have had the …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the estimates? In committee? That's

what I was talking about, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to the

Hansard report of our committee deliberations.

I have discussed this. The Federation of Agriculture has

discussed it. I don't think it's one of the things that they

are most concerned about. This is available now to any farmer

who wishes to apply for it. You may recall, and perhaps this

answer was given to you in your caucus, that in changing the

due date it wasn't so much a matter of getting at the farmland;

it was getting at all the rest of the rural and industrial land

and everything else that is taxed on that date.

Some special provision no doubt could be made for farmers en

masse, but then not all farmers do have that annual income at

the time the grain crop or the fruit crop is harvested. Many of

them have their income coming in all during the year. In some

commodity groups, certainly in dairying, the most profitable

period is prior to this date.

So the system at the moment does not seem to be that

inequitable. The farmers, I think, are quite well aware. The

Federation of Agriculture, I believe, has on occasion made an

attempt to let their members know one way or another that this

option is open to them: that they may write in and simply ask.

It's just that easy. So I'm not convinced that it's very

important.

The Department of Finance, to whom I have made some

representations, just feel that changes in their set-up are

extensive enough so that it's really not warranted. Again,

maybe something will happen. Maybe there'll be more pressure or

maybe there'll be some reason advanced for pursuing it. But at

this time I'm not prepared to push that with the Department of

Finance.

Fort Nelson. The previous Minister of Agriculture discussed

this with me to some extent after I assumed office. He was in

to visit me a couple of times and this is one of the things he

talked about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A million acres? Possibly. I don't know. I

haven't had an opportunity to get up to that area myself. I

have had some reports but nothing really much more than the

information given to me by Mr. Shelford.

The experience we've had in the Peace River in the last four or five years — and you'll recall it's not just a

crop failure of one year; it's near-failures of some four or

five years and then a disastrous year on the end of it — does

not really incline me towards putting a lot of money into the

Fort Nelson area without some pretty careful investigation.

I'm persuaded that there may be a micro-climate situation up

there. If there is, I just question in my mind, without any

knowledge of the situation, whether it would extend to one

million acres. However, again there's no closed door, but so

far in my term of office I haven't had an opportunity to look

at it. I think maybe I won't for a few more weeks.

Alienation of Crown land. At the present the policy with the

Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources — and the

Minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) is out right now — I suggest you

raise this when his estimates are up. As far as the Department

of Agriculture is concerned, we do want to extend the amount of

Crown land that is available, particularly for ranching. We

would like to see this.

We have nothing against leasing. I know that there are

farmers who feel that they want to own. I have no particular

hang-up myself on this one way or another. I think the farmers

can be convinced it is better to have their capital in other

things perhaps and not get it too closely tied up in land.

However, I think that's something that would be better

discussed under the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources.

The educational tax. Yes, I will be making further

representations to the Executive Council. As the Premier has

said, there will be further discussions in caucus on this

question of removal of education tax on land. It may well be

that there'll be some announcement to make later in the

session, but not today.

Promotion of B.C. products. As I said to the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), I would prefer that

we discussed that under vote 6.

Freight rates will be a continuing battle with the federal

government. You know the situation where you can buy B.C.

screenings in Alaska that have gone through the Port of Prince

Rupert $17 a ton cheaper than you can buy them in Prince

Rupert. To me it's just nothing short of ridiculous. Certainly

it does nothing to promote the conversion of this grain product

into meat products which are worth a lot more to us and which,

if we were going to export them, would be worth a lot more. Yet

we're shipping this raw material out and subsidizing it for

other people to buy it rather than subsidizing it for

conversion in our own province.

Now this will be a continuing battle. It's something that's

gone on for many decades and I think goes even beyond the terms

of office of the previous administration. And it will be going

on.

[ Page 898 ]

Vet clinics. The proposal did come from one veterinarian in

particular that we go into some sort of an assistance

programme to establish a vet clinic in Fort St. John. But the

government might go in and put money into the physical facility

and then find out that by the time we got it built, or maybe

soon after that, the vet felt inclined to move somewhere else,

to withdraw his services from that area. Possibly we couldn't

find another vet to go in soon enough, yet we're stuck with the

facility and no service.

The proposal that he welcomed — I'm not sure if he didn't

advance it himself — was that he would put his money into it

but we would help him, either with a grant or by making

longer-term, lower-interest money available. He would have some

investment in this himself and while he might still want to go

somewhere else, he would wait until he found somebody to

replace him, somebody who would take him out of his equity

position in that clinic before he moved.

We welcome that idea; we're ready to support that idea;

we're waiting for the enabling legislation that will be, if it

isn't in, in this session to enable us to enter into

arrangements like that.

The emphasis is not that we are concerned about the amount

of money that might go into it but we want to maintain a

service and want to go the best route to make sure that we do

maintain that service.

The Peace River. I'm sorry, I missed the Peace River. This

was a situation that has received a lot of publicity. It has

been talked about on the other side of the House in particular;

I don't think there has been very much said on this side to

date.

I recognize that there was a disaster in the Peace River

area in the 1972 crop year. I recognize also that it was one of

a series of crop failures to a greater or lesser degree. To the

best of my knowledge there was absolutely no assistance in the

previous three or four crop failures. This year there was some

assistance.

Perhaps the previous government was approached before we

took office. Certainly this Government was approached very soon

after it took office for some assistance for the people who had

suffered such extensive crop losses in the Peace River — all

crops — and the Government did consider it.

We were slow to bring up our own formula for assisting. We

were slow because from the beginning we felt that the federal

government had some obligation to assist the Peace River

farmers. We felt that if we moved too quickly and announced our

programme publicly too soon, then the possibility of getting

the federal government to come along with it would be that much

less.

While there were public comments back and forth, the details

of our proposals were not made known publicly. They were

discussed and amended from time to time but discussed within

our own department and discussed with the federal Minister,

first Mr.

Olsen and then, later on, Mr. Whelan.

The B.C. programme and the Alberta programme. Similar

situations existed except that the losses, I think, were

perhaps worse on the B.C. side generally speaking. The B.C.

programme was better; it got more money to the farmers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not enough. O.K., they didn't get enough.

I'll admit that. But it did give more to them than the Alberta

programme.

Apart from that, our money went out to the farmers some five

weeks earlier than the money went out to the…If you're

distributing copies of my report and there's an extra one, I'd

like to see it.

However, the money did go out on the B.C. side of the border

over a month earlier than it went out on the Alberta side of

the border. Apart from that, we cleared it with the Department

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement to make sure that any

money that was going in in the way of government assistance

would not affect them if any of them were hard up enough that

they went to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement for living expenses, The money we were putting in was to go into the productive

unit, not to be used for living assistance unless the people

involved wanted to use it that way. But if they were going to

apply for help from the Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement, then the grants that they were getting from the

government, in whatever form they were getting them, would not

affect that.

I understand there were some questions about this, some

complaints from some of the individuals. Whenever we heard

about any of these we were able to get them straightened out.

Certainly the policy of the government was that this would not

affect anybody in applying for welfare.

A considerable amount of money was paid out. Our estimates

as to what would be paid out were higher because the number of

people applying were lower than we assumed and the average

acreage was lower than we had figured. The farms apparently

that had the trouble were smaller in acreage than we had

anticipated.

There's a question on the order paper and I'm not sure

whether I've answered that one yet. If it isn't, it's the only

one that hasn't been answered.

In any case, the total payments out of the disaster fund

were $755,165 to 1,432 farmers. Not a great deal of money each,

an average provincial payment of $527.35.

I have a letter here from one person complaining that in his

particular case, all he got was $137.50. But when you work that

backwards, you find out then that he, with a family I think of

four children, had apparently assumed that he was going to be

able to

[ Page 899 ]

farm and support his family on 55 acres of grain land.

This is one of the problems. If they were dependent on grain, then

they should be talking about not 55 acres, not the average 210 acres,

but 500 or 600

acres of grain land. But too many of them are obviously — well, you'll

have an opportunity — I can't really hear you. Too many of them were

trying to get along on small acreages, or they weren't really full-time

farming. Our programme was originally intended to help the full-time

farmers.

Now looking at the figures that have come in since we

announced our programme, since we paid out the money, I'm

thinking that instead of limiting it to 400 acres, maybe what

we really should have done was to have paid it out to those

with 400 acres and over. It might have been more properly

directed for those with the larger acreages. However, we went

this route. It wasn't necessarily the end of it, and of course

there have been other things.

When we were approaching the federal people and trying to

sell our programme of assistance as compared to what they were

prepared to offer, one of the things that I felt we needed was

freight assistance for forage coming into the province. I was

told that there was a great need for this.

After persuading the federal government, at first they said,

"Well B.C. isn't going to get it." Alberta was going to get it

and B.C. wasn't. This was the announcement that came out. Well

there was a very hurried telephone call, telegrams, and finally

word back, "Well O.K., we'll reconsider our position and B.C.

will be included."

About a month after we were able to convince the federal

government that B.C. should be included, the total number of

people from the Peace River area that asked for this assistance

- there may be more later on — but the total number up until a

week ago was five.

Now it left me, I feel, as the Minister of Agriculture in

B.C. with a bit of egg on my face; convincing the federal

government how necessary, how important this programme was in

the Peace River district, and then to find out that five people

… now the figure may be up and may go up yet when people use

up the local supplies; that's possible and I hope so. I hope

that we will get this additional federal money in. Now that is

a 50-50 sharing programme up to a maximum of $14 per ton.

That isn't all the money that went into the Peace River. You've talked about

the money that went to the farms in the lower Fraser Valley. I think you will

recognize that there is some difference. I think you'll recognize for example,

that the potential crop in the Fraser Valley, the areas that you're talking

about…if you are talking about, let's say potatoes, the potential gross

selling value of the product from that land might be $ 1,000 as compared to

something like $50 an acre in the Peace River. There is that difference for

a start.

I think you'll recognize also that the insurance programme

itself was not available to these people who were flooded in

the lower Fraser Valley area or the other areas that were

flooded. Those kinds of crops just weren't covered by the crop

insurance programme. It wasn't available. But they were paying

something else; they were paying a dyking tax, and we talked a

little earlier about the dyking situation.

They were paying a dyking tax which was to protect them from

this very disaster happening. Now, the protection didn't work,

so the people who were putting the capital behind the dyking

programme obviously had to accept some responsibility for this

dyking system not working.

So they did accept this responsibility. I'm sure the farmers

in those areas felt that they weren't getting enough for their

product either. Apart from that, while they weren't paying a

dyking tax in the Peace River, they did have the opportunity to

pay into a crop insurance programme, a crop insurance programme

that did return some of them an average of $3,822. Now this is

pretty high compared to the average I said of the provincial

payment per farmer of $527. The crop insurance programme was

available, and those that took advantage of it averaged $3,822

per individual.

Now the crop insurance programme was attacked, and it wasn't

good enough. It's better now. You'll recall that I announced

previously that although the federal government has offered to

make changes, it's in no position to deliver yet, and may not

be. We don't know what's going to happen this year. We do know

that the Minister of Agriculture wants to, and he's introduced

a bill, and if the government lives long enough, then likely

this will be passed. We'll be in then. Whether it does or not,

this government is now writing, and has been for some months,

writing policies on the new basis, so that the federal

government will be paying 50 per cent of the premium, the

applicant 50 per cent, and the total administration costs which

previously were shared by the provincial and federal government

- the total administration costs — will now be borne by the

provincial government. Big deal? Well it's half a million

dollars, roughly.

Last year the administration vote was in excess of $800,000.

This year it's bound to be over a million, because there are

more applications coming in. But it's a big deal, it's a big

deal for the farmer, who has had his premium reduced by about

one-third. That is a big deal and this is the important part of

it. More people will be coming in.

Last year, people who paid a premium, as I say, got $3,822.

Their average premium was $436. Now they said they couldn't

afford to pay the premium and that's why they didn't take the

programme. They didn't have to pay the premium in full. The

average

[ Page 900 ]

deposit required at that time was $75. So for a deposit of

$75, they could insure themselves to a considerable extent

against crop loss. They chose to go the self insured route. In

spite of a history of four years of near failures, they chose

'not to spend that $75 on the average to win protection against

another disaster. Now that was their choice. They made the

wrong choice.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Farmer's Union

was recommending that they not take it out.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I suggest you take that up with the

Farmer's Union. I have already, and I understand that this year

they are recommending that the farmers do take it out, but I

cannot be responsible for what the Farmer's Union recommended

some time before I ever took this office. Certainly, if I have

any influence on them now, I didn't have any at all then.

However, they should have taken the insurance, more of them

should have. If they had, the crop insurance fund, no doubt,

would be out of funds by now, because already it's in a deficit

position with respect to the grain portion of the programme, by

$2,675,000. Now that is how much money has gone into that Peace

River area in the way of crop insurance in excess of what has

come out of it.

Now money has been going in there, it's not just the acreage

payment that came from the Province of British Columbia, it's

not just the acreage payment, which I don't think has come from

the federal government yet, to the best of my knowledge. It's

not the freight assistance programme. It's not just the PITA

payments that have gone out. There is also these crop insurance

payments that have gone out.

Now you might say that all of this is not good enough. I say

it's not good enough. The farmers up there have talked to me

and I've urged them to keep the pressure on the federal Member,

on the federal government to try to get more assistance — to

get the federal government to take another look at it. I waited

for a while and let that campaign build up, and it did build

up. The Members here have talked to me and I've urged them to

go after the federal Member. The pressure has been building up

to get the federal government to do something more. After it

had built up to a certain point I then got into it myself and

wrote a letter — I've just forgotten the date now — to the

federal Minister, urging him myself to take another look at

this, to recognize the disaster and to do something about

it.

In addition to that, we are trying to work out a supplemental programme in

our department. We haven't the details yet, we're working on it, and again hopefully

before this session is over we'll be able to announce something further. Now

I'm not just dangling this in front of you. We are working on something that

will apply, rather than on a general basis as the previous programme did, and

it went incidentally to those who insured as well as those who didn't, because

we wanted those who did insure not to bear part of the cost of those who didn't.

We felt that that was the only fair way to do it. So it went to all of them.

But the new programme, at the moment we're thinking, will go to those who do

desperately need some kind of assistance to get their crop into the ground,

which is in line I suppose, with the argument coming out now from the federal

Minister that we need to increase grain production in this country.

Certainly we need the grain from the Peace River down here

at the coast right now. The reflection in the cost of

hatching-eggs that we were talking about yesterday, the

broilers that we were talking about, the eggs that I talked

about earlier, we need the grain badly. We need more of it, we

need other things as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Minister, a

supplemental question on this whole matter. Assuming that the

federal government will in some way provide additional

assistance, in cooperation with the provincial government, will

your department then consider a payment of an equal basis or

some other basis along with the federal government, if they're

going to get involved in it?

Secondly, you are presently working on a programme which

would provide assistance, I presume, in certain areas such as

purchasing seed grain, for instance, and fertilizer and things

of this nature for this coming spring for people who are in no

financial position to do that for themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well of course, if I can take a lead from

the previous Premier of the province and say that I never

answer hypothetical questions. Now he said if something

happens, will we do something? Well, I'd like to see that

something happen and see the nature of it before I give any

consideration to what sort of recommendations I make for more

cooperation between the federal and provincial levels of

government. I'm just saying, let me see what happens and then

consider that.

The other programme is not just a matter of purchasing the

seed grain, it's the availability of it, and it's extremely

unlikely that there's any suitable seed grain in that area at

all. Very little, if any. Now this is one of the things we're

aware of and it's one of the things we're considering.

[ Page 901 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some

cracks about Oak Bay as usual, but I think the party has a

responsibility to talk about agriculture even if I happen to

come from a riding where there are few farms.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: I think there's one farm in Oak Bay and there's

a few in Saanich. Part of Saanich is in the Oak Bay riding, so

I claim some connection with farming.

Yesterday comments were made about the role of farming in

the Province of British Columbia, not just whether it's

economical or uneconomical or otherwise, but as to what is the

role of farming. It seemed very strange to me, Mr. Chairman,

coming as it did from the Social Credit benches, when I recall

just before the election last year the leader of the Social

Credit Party, the then Premier — who is now the Member for

Mozambique, I believe — addressed the B.C. Beef Cattle Growers'

Association. Lo and behold, he said that we don't need farmers

in British Columbia and that we can import all that we need to

feed the people of British Columbia.

I think it's just a little hard to swallow, when we have

Members from that party standing up and pleading that we have

long-range planning and that there should be a very responsible

attitude taken to agriculture in this province. I certainly

agree and certainly our party thinks that agriculture is an

extremely vital part of the total economy of British

Columbia.

It's not only vital because it produces food and produce on

which we exist. But to suggest that we can live on imports,

because they appear to be much cheaper at the present time

hardly makes sense. If, in fact, we reached the day when we had

to depend on imports for our food, I would presume that we

would be held up to ransom by food producers outside our own

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are now.

MR. WALLACE: I'm coming to that, if you just have patience,

Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not doing anything about it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, just give me a chance and I'll ask

him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him what he's doing over there.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, I'm going to tell him what we

would do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he's doing nothing.

MR. WALLACE: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, even the question of

employment is significant in the province, regardless of the

great importance of food, in the processing, canning,

distributing, packaging industries. We may find fault with them

incidentally as we go along, but they do create jobs. The

figure was given on inquiry is that perhaps a total of 160,000

jobs would not be far out of line, directly or indirectly

related to agriculture. This is a very substantial figure.

Although a lot of lip service has been paid to the farmer, I

think some figures should be quoted as to what exactly the

farmer does earn. The net income per farmer, for example, from

Statistics Canada in 1966 was $4,440. In 1969, it was $4,200.

In 1971, it was $4,680. In the space of five years, the net

average farm income per farmer really hadn't moved at all. I

think if we look at the fate of the average income earner

between 1966 and 1971, we must all agree that the average

citizen has done much better than the farmer.

While I have not intention, Mr. Chairman, of talking about

Bill 42, I think nevertheless — to touch upon the subject

lightly — it is fair to say that if there is to be rather

extensive legislation affecting the farmer — and the figures

show that he at the present time is not getting a fair deal in

our so-called affluent society, and I don't think he is — I

think that, this whole issue of the degree to which his ability

to earn income and to look after his own financial fortunes has

to be looked at extremely carefully, when these figures show

that he is not increasing his income proportionately, as are

the other wage and income earners in society.

The Member on my right says, "Well, what is the Government

doing about it?" I think that's a fair question. Another

statistic I have here, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is that — this is not from Statistics Canada but from the brief which the

farm industry presented to the Minister — 82 per cent of

farmers receive less than they would if they were on federal

unemployment insurance.

Putting that in the total context of our present society, it

seems to me that if this is the kind of return that farmers are

getting — and as far as I'm aware they're certainly not a

segment of society that works a 40-hour week, nor do they have

many of the amenities and fringe benefits of other income

earners. Therefore, in quoting that statistic, it just further

bears out the fact, I think, that the farmer is not

flourishing, in comparison to many other segments of

society.

The question of planning was raised yesterday and

[ Page 902 ]

it was suggested that this Government doesn't look far

enough ahead or doesn't come up with specific planning.

Certainly, when we consider so much of the technology which has

enabled us to send a man to the moon and develop the most

complicated mechanisms and machinery for saving human life, to

take an example which we're all aware of which is very costly,

it does indeed seem to me that we have such dramatic

fluctuations in the availability of grain. One year, you're

paying the farmer $10 an acre, I think it was, to grow grass.

A couple of years later, we're screaming blue murder because

there's not enough grain even to feed our livestock and the

price of meat is soaring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's poor planning.

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm saying — it's poor planning.

One has to consider some of the very intricate things in human

affairs which seem to be planned very well nowadays. Why can't

we bring some of this same efficiency and insight into the

planning of food production?

I would add to the comment from the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) that in this regard it would seem to make a

great deal of sense for governments, both federal and

provincial, to assist in creating storage facilities. I

wouldn't begin to question the Minister whether it should be

500 million bushels or a billion bushels. But certainly it's

very obvious that it doesn't make sense to sell all the grain

when there happens to be a good crop and the prices seem O.K.

if, in fact, one year later the price is going to be doubled

and we're going to be screaming for it.

I'd like the Minister to comment on 1) whether or not he

agrees with the fact that this, in general, should be a policy,

and 2) to what degree would he anticipate federal, perhaps

50-50, sharing in the creation of more storage facilities.

Another point that was mentioned when I discussed this with

the farmers up north was that even the grain handling at the

present time is antiquated. The same machinery has been there

for years and years. It is the feeling of the farmers that even

if modern machinery could be provided this would make the

operation altogether more efficient.

The Member on my right talks about problems from outside of

British Columbia. This also makes interesting investigation. I

think the lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has

mentioned this in previous debates. It's sad to me, as a person

who is not close to the subject, to hear the same questions

being asked year after year after year in this debate. It seems

to me that there are several underlying principles in this

whole problem of agriculture. This is the fourth year I've been

here and the same questions are being asked, in large

measure.

For example, the question of irrigation. I made some inquiry about Washington,

where the net cost to the farmer is $2 per acre. Apparently in the Okanagan

it's in the region of $30 per acre for irrigation. It stands to reason, with

a basic cost of this difference from producers outside of British Columbia,

that their products will be cheaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, the water runs downhill in

Washington.

MR. WALLACE: In Washington. When I went looking for specific

examples, the farmer quoted me a 1971 example …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You talking about manure again? The 1971

strawberries, Mr. Chairman, in Washington and Oregon apparently

were offered to the processors at 16 cents a pound. In British

Columbia the cost of production of the strawberries was 19

cents a pound. I'm told that for obvious reasons the strawberry

growers were left with little choice but to sell at the 16 cent

price.

The other question that was brought to my attention in the

same area of agriculture was the whole question of lettuce

grown in California. Here again we have B.C. farmers having

great difficulty competing with imported California lettuce.

Apparently they're able to have two or three crops. When the

tail end of the first crop is reached, they're in a hurry to

get going on the second crop. They dump the last part of the

first crop at any price, more or less, wherever they can. I'm

told that this seriously depresses the price of lettuce in this

province.

So we get to the question of what this Government is

prepared to do about the problem of dumping of products from

outside British Columbia. I think this, Mr. Chairman, brings us

to the nub of many of the agricultural problems. It's obviously

very much in the hands of the federal government. The

provincial government does not have the jurisdiction to impose

tariffs. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that even there the rule

is — and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong — as

long as a product is brought in here from let us say California

or Oregon or Washington, if they previously sold a fraction of

their crop at the B.C. price, they can then dump it in British

Columbia at a depressed price. They only have to show,

apparently, that they have previously sold part of their crop

at the B.C. price. It might be 1 per cent of the crop. This is

apparently the phony — at least I think it's phony — qualifications to get the benefits to them of dumping their

product at depressed prices.

In talking with the farmers and their representatives, I

find an unfortunate cynicism. They say that at the federal

level the federal government is much more

[ Page 903 ]

concerned with giving priority consideration in

international trade to many products other than agriculture.

One representative — I think he was the president of the

farmers' association — used the phrase that the "wheels of

international trade are greased with agricultural products",

that really at the federal level we haven't much hope of

negotiating better tariff or better protective measures against

dumping.

I think the Minister already referred to it this afternoon,

that they've already "pushed the panic button" — was the phrase

used by Mr. Harold Danforth. I'd just like to quote briefly

that he feels that the tariff reductions on imported food

products announced in the budget will cut the very heart out of

some parts of the Canadian food producing and processing

industry. I'm quoting the farm critic Harold Danforth.

He told the Commons that:

"The budget tariff reductions applying to imported meats and out-of-season fruits and vegetables have

upset the farm industry as I have never seen before. The

government had obviously pressed the panic button in its worry

about rising food costs, referring to the savings the tariff

cut should bring to consumers."

The point he makes and makes very well, and the point I was

trying to make at the start of my remarks, was that it fails to

realize the disruption which the cuts would trigger in the farm

and processing industries and the unemployment they would

cause.

It's very obvious that on some of the very fundamental

problems certainly affecting horticultural products, the

difficulty for this Government must lie at the federal level. I

would like to hear the Minister comment as to the hope we might

have of progress at the federal level. For example, Mr.

Chairman, I understand that there is no speed with which the

provincial farmers can get action if dumping begins. I

understand — and I'd like the Minister's comments on this — that there's a great deal of red tape involved, and that

sometimes you can finally obtain federal action, but it's about

a month after the product has been dumped in the province and

the damage is done.

With regard to negotiations of tariffs, I think that the

Minister probably knows very well that the GATT negotiations

are about to begin again sometime in 1973. Certainly the

farmers I talked to tell me they're even more afraid than they

have been before, in the light of the federal budget, that even

some of the tariff protection that we now have will probably be

bargained away.

There are other points I'll move over. One interesting point I'd like the Minister

to comment upon. I was informed that fertilizer produced by Cominco — I think

it's called Elephant Brand fertilizer — is now selling more cheaply in the U.S.

than it does in Canada. Presumably there's an explanation for that but again

I'd like to hear the Minister's comment.

To be specific, Mr. Chairman, and make some — I hope — useful proposals, the first part of our policy would be that

the farmer basically, in general terms related to the rest of

society, is not getting a fair deal. We're not the least bit

more encouraged to think that he will get a fair deal in

relation to some of the other policies, which we can't name at

the moment, about to be introduced to the House.

The protein producers, I understand, are probably relatively

well off, again in general terms, comparing them to the grain

farmer and the horticulturalist. Nevertheless, the question of

taxes on the land and educational tax on the land is an

important point. We are disappointed that this was a very

definite election commitment which the socialist Government

made in August.

For the few years that I've been in the House, actually,

this was a policy which the socialist

part very clearly

espoused. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I feel that while the

Premier has been very frank in stating that there's a

difference of opinion in cabinet, since the farmers of all

people are in the poorest financial shape, surely there could

be some immediate action to remove the educational tax from

farmland.

I know the Minister stated in a speech earlier that he

doesn't think that that would make a very substantial

improvement for the farmers. Despite his comments on the Peace

River situation, Mr. Chairman, I think that when you're in the

trouble they're in, every little helps.

I was also under the impression that succession duty removal

was another commitment in the election — to take succession

duty off farms passing between members of the family. I'm not

aware that that commitment has been met either. I recognize the

help that was rendered in reducing the tax on gasoline.

We would also propose, as our attempt to control dumping, to

seek from the federal government an agreement on an automatic

surtax formula. Where any country does dump products, an

automatic duty should be applied to bring the price of the

imported product up to the cost of production of the B.C.

product. In discussion with the farmers, I find it interesting

that they're just asking for fair play in trying to compete.

They're not asking that the province try to keep products out

of B.C. or give the farmer unfair advantage. But they certainly

feel that if some other state begins to import goods at a price

below the cost of production for the Canadian or B.C. Farmer,

then of course they just cannot stay in business.

We would also attempt to negotiate fairer conditions for

products that we're exporting from the province, We would also

support a policy that's already been mentioned — a specific,

positive cam-

[ Page 904 ]

paign to buy B.C. products and to advertise and promote in

ways open to us the fact that it benefits all the people in

B.C. If housewives and consumers buy B.C. products.

I had a visit only today, Mr. Chairman, from farmers who are

in the egg business who tell me that the price has stayed at 50

cents a dozen for a long time but that the feed for the hens

has gone from $72 a ton in September and is now $95 a ton.

There again, if the cost of production is soaring and the

marketing board has maintained the price, Mr. Chairman — it is

repetitive to say so — but I can't think of any other segment

of society that would tolerate this particular attitude to

their financial fortunes at a time when, in almost any other

area of society you can look at, we have bargaining procedures

of one kind or another whereby the person receiving income in

some measure has his income related to cost of production and

the standard of living. But here apparently this does not

apply.

I asked about the fact that the minimum wage does not apply

to farm workers. The answer I get is very clear and simple: it

may not apply in written legislation but farm workers quite

naturally know that everybody else in society is getting $2 an

hour. One can't blame the farm worker for expecting at least

that minimum despite the fact, as I've pointed out earlier,

that some of the farmers themselves, if they calculate their

income on the basis of hours worked, aren't getting $2 an

hour.

One interesting point I would like the Minister to comment

upon, which is a little more lighthearted — is the whole

question of some of the research work being done under the

term, I understand, called "hydroponics," which is a new

method of growing produce in a fluid medium with nutrients

added to the medium in a closed environment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not exactly new.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if it isn't new it certainly isn't widely

used as far as I understand.

Some of the interesting points that were made on this is the

fact that weather isn't a factor to the degree that the crop — this was tomatoes…Toemah-toes? Toe-may-toes? Which?

AN HON. MEMBER: Toe-mah-toes.

MR. WALLACE: …which were being discussed. The comment was

made — again without referring to the bill — that with urban

sprawl the way it is, if we can produce the same amount of

plants in a smaller area, and particularly if you're not

subject to the vagaries of weather, then of course this may be

something that, with an increasing population, we simply have

to look to on a larger scale.

I'm referring to a plant in Delta which states that their findings have been

that it is a commercially feasible undertaking. The interesting piece of information

is that of the 30 million pounds of tomatoes eaten annually, 28 million pounds

are imported. Therefore, it would seem if we can make a successful production

of this particular crop under these circumstances, I wonder if the Minister

would care to make a comment as to whether perhaps incentives will be given

to widen this if it is commercially feasible? Or, alternatively, is there any

obvious wisdom in increasing it to many other crops besides tomatoes?

Finally, I have to return to the situation in the Peace

River country because it is quite clear from contacts in that

area and in talking to people who see the situation at

firsthand that many people are certainly facing …

With respect, Mr. Chairman, through you, money may have

been paid in to the farmers in that area but the farmer is in

all kinds of debts in relation to machinery and bank loans. I

understand the situation is really grim.

Let's not have recriminations as to whether or not they

should or should not have crop insurance or whether the last

government didn't do this or that. The fact is that many of

these farmers are now in desperate financial straits. I

understand that the financial lending businesses in the area

would perhaps be more likely to give further loans and

financial assistance if there could be some moratorium, let us

say for a year, on payments on the existing debt and

interest.

The feeling seems to be quite clear that unless there is a

hope of future capital, there certainly will be foreclosures

and bankruptcies. The situation for many farmers will get

beyond the point of no return.

I have a question on the order paper in general terms about

regional designation by the Department of Regional Economic

Expansion (DREE). I addressed the question to the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald).

The question was raised in the federal House just the other

day on this whole question of regional economic expansion. The

answer given was that the Minister is sympathetic but the

initiative must come from the provinces. This being the case, I

can't think of a more appropriate situation than the Peace

River situation if we are likely to receive the kind of money

which Mr. Marchand certainly made available to other areas in

eastern Canada, which I am sure were no less or more worthy of

the needs of the Peace River area.

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would

consider seeking such designation of that area under the DREE

agreement.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this party feels that the policies of

the Department of Agriculture are not meeting the needs either

of the people in the industry or the people of this province.

We feel that one of the

[ Page 905 ]

policies in particular has certainly got a degree of effect

on the farmer and yet this provincial government really does

not have the power to control the factors which are making

farming uneconomic. This again refers to the extreme importance

of provincial federal negotiation and sharing agreements and

legislation such as anti-dumping legislation.

We feel that to have done generally so little for the farmer

for the reasons I've outlined, and finally in recent days to be

bringing in policies which place him at a much-to-be-regretted

disadvantage to his future and his financial welfare compared

to the rest of society, that we would like to move that the

salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

be reduced from $ 24,000 to $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An amendment to vote 3: moved that the salary

of the Minister of Agriculture be reduced from $ 24,000 to $1.

Now the debate will be on the amendment.

I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): A motion has been

moved to reduce the salary of the Minister of Agriculture. On

behalf of my colleagues, I must reject outright this motion and

everything that preceded the motion.

We listened to what the Member had to say. He examined the

record of agriculture in the Province of British Columbia in

preceding years and until now. He mentioned such things as the

suffering of the farmers in areas of the province because of

damage done by weather to crops. He examined the whole field of

the operations of agriculture, not only in other parts of

Canada but throughout North America, and the impact that that

had on agriculture in British Columbia.

In other words, he tried to relate to this Minister all of

the vagaries of the well controlled private enterprise system

which he supports and which we reject. I suggest that his vote

of nonconfidence should not have been with this Minister or

this Government but in the system which he has so stoutly

defended year after year in this House.

The Government and the Minister of Agriculture spent a great

deal of time in northern British Columbia examining the damage

that was done there to the crops in that area. This Government

did make a substantial cash contribution to help the farmers

during this very difficult period. The suggestion was made that

the Government did not do it enough.

I'm not going to say that they should have had more insurance or anything else,

I'm not going to say that at all. But the fact remains that there are senior

governments to whom local districts and individuals must turn when they have

problems. I suggest that the provincial government showed itself and that Minister

showed himself much more understanding and much more receptive to the plea of

the farmers than did the federal jurisdiction in Canada.

Had the federal jurisdiction, which after all is the prime

taxing authority in this country, had they shown the same

understanding and the same concern for the farmers of northern

British Columbia as this Minister and this Government did, then

certainly the farmers would have had a much easier time.

I suggest too, that in the setting up of his whole

department, this Minister has indicated a concern for

agriculture in British Columbia unmatched in the history of

this province. Unmatched in the history of this province.

I stood on that side of the House for years and pointed out

the fact that it wasn't really the amount of money that was

spent by the Department of Agriculture that determined how much

help Government could give agriculture in the Province of

British Columbia. Farmers have always said that they want help,

not on a hand-out basis, but help so they could help

themselves. That is the new direction that agriculture is

taking in this Province of British Columbia — to help farmers

to help themselves. The Member who just sat down really

couldn't have examined the estimates that are succeeding this

particular vote. Otherwise he would have seen the brand new

help that is coming to farmers in British Columbia so they can

help themselves.

I have said from that side of the House time after time that

we must help the farmers to determine that the crop they are

growing is the proper variety and the proper kind. They must

know what the market is and grow produce to fit that market.

There has been absolutely no research done in this province by

any previous administration to accomplish that. But set up in

the estimates of this department right now is, for the first

time, a research agency to help the farmer to help himself.

In the estimates that succeed this particular vote, under

the jurisdiction and demand of that Minister, we find a

substantial increase in the number of agriculturists that are

going to, again on the local level, help the farmer to help

himself — give him the guidance and help to overcome his

problems, to produce better crops to fit the market needs of

the people of British Columbia. There are other areas — I think

it's 15 more laboratory technicians to do the research in the

individual crops, how they operate, what they require to become

better.

Never before in the history of this province have we had

that help. I suggest to you that this motion is not based on

the work that has been done by this Minister; the new

directions in which this Minister is taking agriculture — to

preserve agriculture in the province of British Columbia. What

this motion reflects is the determination by the leader of that

group — not the House Leader — that agriculture has no place in

the Province of British Columbia. Like

[ Page 906 ]

many other people in the private sector of this province,

they have written agriculture off. They have said, "Well, it's

not worth saving. It's too late. Let it go. Let the

entrepreneurs have it. Let it go to rack and ruin."

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand here now — this Government will

never neglect agriculture in the Province of British Columbia.

This Government will never write agriculture off. Agriculture

must have a place in the future of this province — this

Minister is going to ensure it and we certainly will vote

against this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I haven't had a chance

to read the words of the motion but I understand it is to reduce the Minister's

salary. I want to say that this party, the Social Credit and the official Opposition,

do not want to enter into a frivolous debate about the Minister's salary. What

we want to talk about is the Minister's competence and his philosophy.

Having listened to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I

must say that it is impressive, the intellectual cosmos he

revolves in when it comes to agriculture. I would suggest, if I

could sing, you would hear, "Yahoo, the operating room is

calling." That might be where that Member's competence

lies.

He talks in terms of generalities, and this has been the

problem of agriculture for years. Everybody has a theoretical

solution, but no one has a gut solution. That is what the

farmers of this province want and that is the responsibility of

that Minister, what he is in the position to do — come up with

some gut, practical solutions to the farming problems in

British Columbia.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, and I'm not defending the

Minister, talks about streamlining transportation of grain to

the ports and this may well have some merit. But what is it

going to do for the farmer? The intestinal problem is that no

matter how much grain you get there, if there aren't men on the

docks to load that grain at the crucial time, it doesn't go

anywhere. It is the farmer who takes the loss. So you have to

get down to the intestinal problems of labour when you are

talking about the problems of the farmer.

He talks about the import trades and the export regulations

and he is right in this area, but still it is a theoretical

problem. He doesn't seem to recognize, if you take vegetables

for example, that California can produce three crops a year. In

British Columbia we can only produce one crop a year.

So, number one, we don't have enough production ability to meet our market

needs internally on a year-round basis. He couldn't begin to suggest that the

consumer in British Columbia is only going to eat cabbage or cauliflower for

a period of two months a year and then not have any the rest of the year. The

force of the consumer market is far too strong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Broccoli for the rest of the year.

MRS. JORDAN: So until science can come up with a way in

which you can store cauliflower or cabbages or other fresh

produce — tomatoes — on a year-round basis, that is produced in

British Columbia for a year-round market, we are just orbiting when we talk about this problem.

Weather — we have to face the realities of life that, in

many parts of British Columbia, weather is our worst enemy when

it comes to a surviving and viable agriculture industry. I

would think of the Okanagan and I think of the area I

represent, North Okanagan, which once was a very large apple

producing area. It is the weather that is our enemy and then

the lack of markets.

I am sure the Minister is aware, and it might be of

information to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, that the

federal-provincial study that is going on in the Okanagan

Valley now has predicted that there will be a decrease in fruit

production acreage, but an increase in productivity and

product.

So their problem is not lack of land to produce on, and

really at this time it is not lack of water to make that land

productive. It is the fact that there isn't a profitable market

for their product. We haven't got a big enough market in

British Columbia. We haven't got a big enough market in western

Canada and there isn't a big enough market in Canada. So we

have to be in the area of international marketing when it comes

to some of our products in British Columbia, such as fruit.

The egg marketing situation and in part the milk production

situation has been able to paint a brighter picture in the last

few years because we can control our production to our

utilization and our internal market. We can make, if not

profitable, at least put it in a financial position where it

can survive.

We can't do that in the fruit industry and we can't do that

in the vegetable industry and we can't do that in the grape

industry and we can't do that in the cattle industry. They are

all part of farming.

We would think that if that Member had stuck to more of the,

as I said, the intestinal issues of the farming problem instead

of fiddling around with the Minister's salary — he's only been

there six months and while I don't protect him, at least this

party is fair enough to give him a chance to come up with some

problems his government has increased. —

I must also say that when I listened to the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I can't help but

entertain a smile. He tickles me each year when he …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 907 ]

MRS. JORDAN: When he nostalgically talks about the Ashcroft

potato and he nostalgically talks about the farms in the

Okanagan and the lower mainland. But it's his party, his

partners in Ottawa who have taken an exact opposite position to

the farmers in British Columbia. Some examples have been cited

in the previous debate and I won't go over them.

Let me give one example in the Okanagan. We are trying

desperately to develop a fruit concentrate industry which will

utilize the apples which are no longer acceptable on the

market. What does the federal government do? Over the past 10

years they have increased their imports of fruit concentrates

to Canada by 400 per cent, Mr. Chairman. Then they put a little

label on them that says they're processed in Canada and they

send it to the United States. Then they say, "We Canadians are

exporting so much fruit concentrate." It's that type of Liberal

policy that has contributed to the serious agricultural problem

in British Columbia today.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get down to some intestinal

reactions. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

generalized, but I'd like to quote some figures, when we're

talking about income to farmers and what is happening in

British Columbia and in Canada. I'll quote one of the federal

Ministers — his figures don't agree with the Statistics Canada

figures — but I will quote from the British Columbia

Orchardist of November-December, 1972, and it's quoting the

then federal cabinet Minister, who says that the average income

of Canadian farmers is $4,352 per farm, and that the average

net income of farm families in Canada today is $3,890.

When we're talking in terms of when you get the grain to the

port; when you get our apples to the port for export; when you

get our apples off the trees ready to be transported to

Vancouver or to the Arctic or to eastern Canada, how does

labour play a role? I'd like to examine this.

If you look at farm wages over the past few years you find

that today the average farmer works a 70 hour week and his

average wage is $1.64 an hour. This doesn't take into

consideration any return on his capital investment, in his

land, his buildings, his equipment or in his rolling stock.

For construction workers the average pay is $4.77 an hour.

For factory workers in Canada the average pay is $3.28 an hour.

For general work in hotels and motels and service industries

across Canada, which includes the low-wage areas of the

Maritimes and the prairie provinces, even they are $1.96 an

hour. These people don't have any capital investment. These

people work an average of eight hours a day and a 40 hour week.

But the farmer, who works for a 70 hour week on the average,

gets an hourly average rate of $1.64 — many don't earn even

that much.

I would suggest to the Minister that one of the most serious problems he has

is the pressure that is building up between the consumer and the farmer. How

much do we spend on food in Canada? We spend a smaller proportion today of our

income on food than we ever did before. Between 1961 and 1971 the general price

index increased by 33.4 per cent, but in the same period the retail food price

increased by only 27.4 per cent.

If you would like some examples of what we're paying today

for food, I suggest you look at what an hour's work in a

factory brought in 1971 and 10 years earlier. For example,

sirloin steak — if you enjoy that — one hour's work in a

factory in 1961 bought 1.9 pounds of meat, but one hour's work

in a factory in 1971 bought 2.4 pounds of meat.

Pork chops — one hour's work in a factory in 1961 bought 2.5

pounds; in 1971, 3.7 pounds. Milk — and they're just undergoing

a price increase now which the consumer is objecting to — in

1961 one hour's work bought 7.8 per cent of a quart; in 1971,

9.6 per cent of a quart. Apples: in 1961, 10.3 pounds; in 1971

one hour's work bought 15.5 pounds. Bread, the staff of life:

in 1961 11.5 pounds and in 1971 15.8 pounds.

Canadians today spend less of their earnings proportionately

on food than anywhere else in any other country with the

exception of the United States. In the United States they spend

18.3 per cent of their income on food. In Canada we spend 19.3

per cent of our income on food. In Sweden, that bastion of

socialism, they pay 25 per cent of their monthly income on

food. In France, another strongly socialist country, they pay

27.5 per cent. In Britain, which is rocking under the problems

of labour management conflict, they pay 23.7 per cent of their

income.

I think when reviewing food costs …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't want to interrupt the Member

particularly speaking, but if this is to be a long attack on

the salary of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) perhaps I

could go out for a few moments. I am not sure whether there is

a long Opposition attack on his salary or not at this point.

Do you have some plans?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member try to relate her

remarks …

MRS. JORDAN: That's a frivolous comment, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member try to

relate her comments to the amendment?

[ Page 908 ]

MRS. JORDAN: What I am trying to point out in relation to

your salary is that you can argue all you want about figures,

but it is the real problem that counts. I'll get to the

Minister's salary in just a minute.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In this debate on the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. If you don't want to listen to these

figures, Mr. Minister, we may change our mind and not vote for

your salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: We're not going to pass your salary for

nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, please?

MRS. JORDAN: You've got a job to do. You've created some

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you address the Chair,

please?

MRS. JORDAN: …problems which are unbelievable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman.

What are the farmer's receipts? What is his salary? When

reviewing food costs you should remember — and I'll cite three

examples — that the farmer gets: 17 cents out of 33 cents spent

on a quart of milk; 57 cents for every dollar spent on beef; 2

cents for wheat on a 25 cent loaf of bread. So I would suggest

that there isn't a labour union in the world that would

tolerate this type of inequity.

Over the last few years it's well to remember, when we're talking

salaries, that wholesale food prices have gone up 20 per cent, retail

food prices have gone up 43 per cent and farm prices have gone up 6 per

cent.

Women in the labour force have received 20 per cent average

increase and the union's increase for the males has been a 26

per cent average.

When we're talking about this problem of agriculture and

what some of the solutions are, in part of the debate around

the philosophy that's been introduced by that Minister in the

bills in this House has come a lot of discussion about 8 hour

days and 7 hour days and 35 hour work weeks. I'd like to give

you a reaction from a farmer, and I'm going to quote him,

because we've had theoretical reactions, the lawyers have been in the debate and the doctors have been in

the debate. Let's get some farmers in the debate.

He points out as his reason why this Minister in earning his

salary must come to grips with this problem of labour and

income. It's on the subject that he picked up out of the paper

from one of the Hon. Members in the NDP, stating why labour

needed to have shorter work hours. He says:

"Since affected by seasons, livestock, weather, that Member

should remember that farmers cannot operate on regular short work weeks. If farmers

went to a 35 hour week, food would become very scarce. Or if they hired two

shifts, food would become very expensive. Yet part of our costs and part of

our lack of profit comes from the action of organized labour acting in their

own interest, which is rightfully their intent, but with — no consideration

for the other sectors of society.

"Shorter city work hours increase the food c o s t s spread

between producers and consumers….

and he's right.

"In addition many city products and services are becoming unavailable

to the rural people because of the cost and the time factor in transporting.

Rural areas cannot be adequately served by public utilities, repair shops, parts

depots and other essential services in less than a 7 day work week."

He's right. It a farmer is plowing on Sunday and his plow

breaks down, how can he wait until Monday to have it repaired?

He has to have those service centres open. If they're going to

increase their cost to him, then he has to have a better return

for his produce.

"Pressure for short work hours increases the tendency to

automation, which in my mind increases unemployment, which in

turn decreases the money available for food purchases."

There's a farmer …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King),

he knows what it's all about. He isn't sitting in a plushy

chair in this chamber. He's out there farming. It's his money

that's on the line and his sweat and his labour and his

knowledge that's on the line. You should be concerned, Mr.

Minister of Labour.

Farmers cannot compete on the labour market and keep their sons on the farms

when there's such a large difference in working hours and return between city

and country occupations. This farmer, Mr. Chairman, puts it into a poem and

I'd like to share it with the Members of this House. I'd ask all of you who

are

[ Page 909 ]

interested in the labour movement to just remember this poem. Maybe it sums

up in his words, better than any of us can say, what he'd like in life. He's

a dairy farmer. He calls it "The Lament of a Dairy Farmer." He says:

"I long for a cow of modern make

That milks five days for leisure's sake,

That sleeps on Saturday, snores on Sunday,

And starts afresh again on Monday.

I wish for a herd that knows the way

To wash each other every other day,

That never bothers to excite us

With chills or fever or mastitis.

I sigh for a new and better breed

That takes less grooming and less feed,

That has the reason, wit and wisdom

To use the seat and the flushing system.

I pray each weekend long and clear

Less work to do from year to year,

And cows that reach production's peak,

All in a five-day working week.

To guide the farmers at their job

And show those stupid breeders how

To propagate a five-day cow."

I think he has a real point there. His name is Mr. McNair

and he lives in Enderby. He's a very fine farmer and he's got a

good sense of humour. But it's a plea. It's a plea to the

Minister of Agriculture — whose salary we're discussing now — to

get off the theoretical trend and to get down to some of the

real problems of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the question on the amendment

now be put.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): I very rarely,

Mr. Chairman, rise in the debates in the Minister of

Agriculture's estimates. My riding is somewhat urban. I'm told

that when my predecessor, Ray Perrault, was the Member for this

riding, he used to make an annual speech in the Minister of

Agriculture's estimates on the blueberry bushes of Grouse

Mountain. I've never felt I was equipped to speak in

agriculture, but I do want to make just this one comment, Mr.

Chairman, with regard to this motion.

I remember very well several years ago a similar motion to

reduce the estimates of the former Minister of Education to

$1.49. That particular debate was a personal attack on a

Minister who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people

in the House, was not performing well as a Minister of his

department.

In this case, I feel this motion is a personal attack on the

Minister. I think we should rather be debating the Minister's

policies. If we want to disagree with his policies, let us say

so. If we want to disagree with a bill which he has brought in

and which we cannot debate now, let's debate that when we get

to that bill. In the meantime, this party will oppose the

motion.

MR, CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman,

thank you. First of all, I'd like to make a couple of things

clear in speaking to the motion.

There is no personal attack intended here. I understand that

in parliamentary government, this is the traditional and

appropriate manner in which one expresses disapproval with the

manner in which a Minister is conducting the affairs of his

department. Certainly, I stand with no malice towards the

Minister as an individual. Therefore I refute absolutely and

totally the suggestion that it is a personal attack.

I would also like to make it clear for a couple of Members

who felt compelled to refer to the profession of my colleague.

I'm not a doctor. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a farmer. I also

don't know too much about farming. But I do know that a number

of my constituents in an urban, rural and Gulf island setting,

are vitally concerned about farming in 1973 and its short and

long term future. They have expressed to me and to others in

our party the concern which is embodied in the motion before

the House now.