1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 347 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Tribute to Mr. Ray Rickinson. Hon. Mr. Levi — 347

Mr. Chabot — 347

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 347

Mr. Wallace — 347

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Plan 7-3-1. Mr. Chabot — 348

Moneys for BCIT Totem League membership. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 348

Work stoppages in elevator industry. Mr. Curtis — 348

Taxation as a bar to land speculation. Mr. Phillips — 348

Area boundaries for new Fraser-mouth industrial park. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 349

Alternative methods of northern oil shipment. Mr. Wallace — 349

Equality in covering education material costs. Mr. Schroeder — 350

Release of Foulkes report. Mr. McGeer — 350

Shortage of cars on B.C. Railway. Mr. Smith — 351

Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 11). Hon. Mr.

King.

Introduction and first reading — 351

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill 40). Hon. Mr.

King.

Introduction and first reading — 351

Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act (Bill 41). Mr.

Richter.

Introduction and first reading — 351

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act (Bill 3). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 352

Mr. Phillips — 352

Mr. McGeer — 352

Mr. Wallace — 352

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 352

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development Act (Bill

5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 353

Mr. Phillips — 353

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 353

Mr. McGeer — 353

Mr. Wallace — 354

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 354

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act (Bill 7). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 355

Mr. Phillips — 355

Mr. Williams — 355

Mr. Wallace — 356

Ms. Sanford — 356

Mrs. Jordan — 356

Mr. Cummings — 357

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 357

Mr. Richter — 357

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 357

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act (Bill 8). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 358

Mr. Rolston — 359

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 365

Mr. Phillips — 365

Mr. Williams — 370

Mr. Wallace — 373

Division on motion to postpone second reading — 377

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 377

MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed I draw your

attention to page 4, September 27, Votes and Proceedings . There

was a slight typographical error on page 4. The bill on which

there was a division was actually Bill 10. And that error I

would ask your leave to correct in Votes and Proceedings for

the purposes of the Journals of the House. Is that agreed?

I might say that that's only one typographical error, which

is better than the Saturday local paper.

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

I draw to the attention of the House a group of students who

are with us today, who have toured the legislative buildings

and are now observing the first part of our deliberations this

afternoon. The school has had a good association with this

House by reason of the provision of Pages in the past — Reynolds

Junior Secondary in Saanich. There are 29 students present,

accompanied by their supervisors Mr. Dumka, Mrs. Staples, and

Mr. Layman. Perhaps the House could join me in welcoming

them.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, sitting on the floor of the

House is Ray Rickinson, the Deputy Minister of the Department

of Human Resources. Ray Rickinson has been with the civil

service for 45 years. He joined the civil service in 1929, at a

time, I think, when only half of the people in the present

Legislature were born, including the Premier. He served under

Tolmie, Pattullo, Hart, Johnson, Bennett, and Barrett. He also

served under 10 Ministers.

He started his career on January 22, 1929, at $45 a month as

a junior clerk in the treasury department. In 1937 he

transferred to the audit department, rising to the position of

senior auditor. And in 1946 he was appointed chief accountant

in the newly-formed Department of Health and Welfare. He was

later promoted to comptroller of expenditure, and subsequently

to his present position as Deputy Minister in January, 1956.

Rick is the longest-serving Deputy in Canada, in this

particular department.

Rick is retiring at the end of the year. He sat on the floor of this House

on many occasions to assist Ministers during the departmental estimates, as

he did with me last year. It takes a lot longer than a year to become a Minister,

and he's been part of my training period. But today he's on the floor because

he epitomizes the civil servant who loyally serves the people of the Province

of British Columbia.

Mrs. Rickinson is sitting in the gallery and I would ask the

House to welcome Mr. Rickinson and Mrs. Rickinson, and to

thank Ray Rickinson for 45 years in the service of the Province

of British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the official opposition we want to join with the Minister in

paying tribute to Mr. Rickinson for his devoted service and

loyalty to the people of the Province of British Columbia — a

man who has worked his way up from a boy, through the ranks, to

the highest position in the civil service. I want to assure you

that his kind is a vanishing breed in the civil service of

British Columbia. He has been a dedicated public servant for 45

years. He has made many, many contributions, not only in the

Province of British Columbia but at federal-provincial

conferences as well. His contributions and his ability and

knowledge have been well recognized in other jurisdictions in

this country. He has participated in the many innovations, in

the new programmes that have been established in the department

of social welfare. He has demonstrated his ability to

administer those programmes as well. He has been a tremendous

credit to the Province of British Columbia. We as the official

opposition certainly have been pleased to have been associated

with him in the years we were government, and we want to extend

to him best wishes in years ahead.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like on

behalf of my party to join with the Minister of Human Resources

in expressing our best wishes to Mr. Rickinson in the years

ahead, and also to thank him for the lengthy service — 45 years

of service — to the people of British Columbia.

When it was mentioned by the Minister that Mr. Rickinson

began with the Tolmie regime, we realize how transitory our

politicians and administrations are and how permanent the civil

service. I think this indicates that over the years, while we

have come and gone, people like Mr. Rickinson have carried on

the business of the people in a civil service in a very fine

way and with an excellent tradition. We certainly agree that

this praise is well deserved and we would also like to wish him

well in the years ahead.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Conservative Party I would add our warm appreciation of the

efforts that Mr. Rickinson has made. I would like to comment in

passing that I hope this is something of a tradition which is

being established. When men with this length and character

[ Page 348 ]

of service resign that they do gain this kind of recognition

right on the floor of the House where the people's business is

done. And I like the comment by the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) that Mr. Rickinson has served the people of

British Columbia. It is so often mistaken that the civil

service serve a particular government of the day. I like to

think that this recognition is being given as a little

something more than the usual gold watch.

I don't know whether the government's planning a gold watch

ceremony or not, but Mr. Rickinson, in my experiences as an

MLA, represents all that is good about dedication to public

service. His responses to phone calls, to letters go far beyond

the usual call of duty of a Deputy Minister. I would like you

to know that of all the people in the civil service with whom I

have been in contact in my few short years, there is nobody I

respect more than Mr. Rickinson, and I would wish you very

well, sir, in your retirement.

Oral questions.

PLAN 7-3-1

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is a statement of public

importance made this morning by Mrs. Braverman, that there is a

strong possibility — it's called Plan 7-3-1 — there is a strong

possibility that the Liberal Party will be government after the

next election. I'm wondering if the Premier would want to

comment as to whether this Plan 7-3-1 is a one-way jet flight

to Maui or what is it?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I assure you that

this is not a put-up question. But I have been giving some

thought to Plan 7-3-1, and I figured it out. It's seven leaders

in a few short years; he has three years to wait for an

election; then one election and he's out. (Laughter.)

MONEYS FOR BCIT

TOTEM LEAGUE MEMBERSHIP

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted by the

tremendous concern of the official opposition and government

engendered by this pressing matter of public importance that

either would like to comment on today. Mrs. Braverman will be

flattered and I am pleased. But I would like to ask a question

on a different plan of the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly), which does have a certain amount of pressing

importance.

If BCIT does not get its grant from the Department of Education for extra-curricular

sports before tomorrow night, they must drop out of the league. I wonder whether

she would indicate when she intends to reply to the correspondence which began,

I believe, in July of this year, and whether or not the students there can know

whether this money is forthcoming and whether they will indeed be members of

the Totem League for the upcoming year?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In reply to your

question, we have not only had correspondence but we have

actually talked with the students over the phone; so there has

been communication. The problem is that as BCIT is a provincial

institution, different from the colleges and universities in

the sense that it still comes under the provincial government

directly, there has been a problem in working out how this

money would go to them. We quite agree that they should not be

denied the right to these student activity funds which the

other students in the province have. Today we met on this very

matter, and they will be informed today that money will be

provided for them.

WORK STOPPAGE IN

ELEVATOR INDUSTRY

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

the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King): we spoke last week

briefly about the possibility of another work stoppage in the

elevator industry. Could the Minister update the House on that

particular topic this afternoon?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, with

respect to the elevator dispute that has been going on for a

number of months, the parties involved had agreed to be bound

by the results of the Ontario arbitration. This award has not

been handed down yet, so I am not at liberty to comment on its

contents or, indeed, speculate on any different position the

parties may take once it is tabled.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I find that I am

at a loss with respect to the answer last week and the answer

again today. Have the Minister or the senior officials of his

department offered any assistance or become involved in any way

in the possible stoppage of work in this industry within the

last few days?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer. The

parties have agreed to be bound by arbitration, and I am

awaiting the arbitration award. It has not been handed down as

yet, I think it would be completely speculative to attempt to

anticipate any problem that may arise.

TAXATION AS A BAR

TO LAND SPECULATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would

[ Page

349 ]

like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) and, at the same time, welcome the Minister

back from his travels in Ottawa. I've had this subject on my

mind ever since the morning before he left when he said on the

Jack Webster show — and I quote — that he would not expropriate

land outside the designated agricultural lands under Bill 42,

but would "persuade people by taxation not to buy these lands."

I would like the Minister to give me his

interpretation of

"persuade people by taxation."

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'm not sure

what the question is, Mr. Speaker. I didn't say that we would

persuade people by taxation not to buy land. That is not a

direct quotation.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary on the same question. Did the

Minister say that he would persuade people to give up land by

taxation? Because I have the actual quotation….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Member has to, first of all, make

sure that his quotation is correct. If his quotation is correct

the question appears to be in order, although the Minister has

differed as to the

interpretation. I don't think you can keep

asking him what he did say.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, Hon. Members, that question

period is not a cross-examination; but if the Hon. Minister

wants to answer, it is up to him.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the

programme. (Laughter.) I have no idea what was broadcast. I do

know what was taped. I was there taping. I did say that when

the government is aware of a problem, the government has shown

that it has the will to act and has shown that it has the

determination to act; and when we recognize that this indeed is

a problem, we're not beyond using taxation as a means of

dealing with this particular problem.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary on the same subject, Mr.

Speaker. Has the Minister informed the regional districts, who

are supposed to have input on the Land Commission, of his new

policy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was not announcing new

policy. The regional districts were informed at the same time

as the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

AREA BOUNDARIES FOR NEW

FRASER-MOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) arising out of his statement at Naramata

last weekend that some 1,700 acres would be required for a new industrial park

at the mouth of the Fraser. May I ask him whether the boundaries of this area

have been established for this industrial reserve are, how much of the estuary

is involved, how much of the foreshore and, of course, how much farmland presently

frozen under the provisions of Bill 42?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that I made no such statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I just query further, Mr. Speaker? As I understood

it, a statement was made by the Minister concerning the establishment of new

port facilities and industrial areas at the mouth of the Fraser to replace the

False Creek industries. I wonder whether he could indicate whether perhaps I

am wrong in my facts or in some specific fact, or what he precisely said on

this point.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Speaker, what was indicated at the meeting

was that if there were opportunities for the government to consider serving

the recreational interests of the central part of the city, then the government

would have to seriously consider elbow room in terms of potential industrial

sites on the Fraser River so that the areas where most of the people live, in

the central part of the city, could benefit. But that would be a matter of study

and judgement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister finally, Mr. Speaker, whether

or not there have been any changes made in the industrial reserve-designated

area which is now farmland and which is presently being used for agriculture

behind the Roberts Bank development?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The land immediately back of Roberts Bank, I believe,

is under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Harbours Board and that is in the hands

of the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would the other Minister like to comment on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think that we perhaps should give someone else

a chance first.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF

NORTHERN OIL SHIPMENT

MR. WALLACE: I thought I'd never

[ Page

350 ]

make it. I'd like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams): in light of the continuing alarm about the oil tankers

coming down the west coast and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, are there

any current initiatives being taken by this government adequately to express

its concern to the federal government? Secondly, if there are initiatives being

taken, what alternatives to the tanker route are favoured by this government,

other than the one that the Premier presented earlier on regarding the shipment

of oil by rail.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think those are the prime moves by the government,

Mr. Speaker: that is, to seriously look at the land approach in terms of moving

these materials.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question. Could I just ask the Minister

to give us some ideas as to what degree he thinks the federal government is

actively either discussing or considering this? Or have they given any deadline

or date as to when they will at least give us a decision? There seems to be

tremendous federal indecision on this very vital public issue.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have any recent information. I

agree with the Hon. Member that indecision is the pattern in the east.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not within the competence of this question period.

EQUALITY IN COVERING

EDUCATION MATERIAL COSTS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of Education. Since

a growing number of students are experiencing increased costs while enrolling

in various courses, both elective and required — the increased costs in the

realm of textbook rentals and art supplies, industrial arts supplies, musical

instruments, and so on and so forth — what plans does the Minister have toward

ensuring equal opportunity in education?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We have met with the BCSTA who prepared an excellent

brief on that very point. I was pleased to see that they were very concerned

about it. All I can say it that I am equally concerned, but I'm afraid I can't

give you policy until the budget comes in the spring. I hope then that we will

be able to show you the direction in which we will go to alleviate this.

RELEASE OF FOULKES REPORT

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

whether he plans to release any parts of the Foulkes Report to the Legislature

during the current session?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, as was accurately reported this morning, I have indicated to the

Foulkes committee that I'd prefer that they finish the job thoroughly prior to

submitting the report. They have another four weeks. If the report is available

sooner than four weeks, then there is a possibility that I could table the report.

But it is very, very unlikely at this time that it will be ready by the end

of the session. I just don't know.

MR. McGEER: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has

had to make some moves already in the absence of that report. But I wonder if

he would be willing to table now the report of his Toronto hospital consultants

which formed the basis of his decision at the Shaughnessy site.

HON. MR. COCKE: That report was a report not made to me; it was made

to the Foulkes committee. It was strictly a consultation; and it wasn't a formal

report in any way, shape or form. I would have to discuss the whole question

of releasing working papers and consultations. I really don't feel that they

would serve Legislature's purpose.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think they would serve a very important

purpose. I hope tomorrow the Minister can give us a definite decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you have made your statement.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly consider the request.

MR. CHABOT: Will the Foulkes report be made available to the Legislature

first, first, or will it be announced at the BCHA annual meeting which is being

held, I believe, On October 22, where the Minister and Dr. Foulkes are speaking,

or will we have it first here?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't like the tone of that question.

The fact of the matter is that it is not going to be released to the BCHA annual

meeting. If it is available for presentation, I indicated to the former questioner

that it would be made available here. I'm not taking seven volumes or eight

volumes, or whatever it is, to BCHA or any other convention.

MR. CHABOT: The announcement will be made

[ Page 351 ]

here first. Is that right?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. There is no obligation on the

Members….

MR. CHABOT: It's a supplementary question….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker tries to be fair to all the

Members, and the Member for North…. Order! The member for North

Peace River has the floor and he hasn't had it up until now,

but you have.

MR. CHABOT: Closure!

SHORTAGE OF CARS ON

B.C. RAILWAY

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Premier in his capacity as President of the B.C.

Railway. Has the Premier anything further to report regarding

the critical rail car and chip car shortage, or would you bring

us up to date? It is a very real, very bad and critical problem

in all parts of northern B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is a very serious problem, Mr. Member,

and we are doing everything we can to acquire cars.

We had a board meeting of the railway last week. We had a

report that our rail car plant at Squamish will be in

production in March instead of January. Even at that, they have

achieved a very remarkable record in getting that thing

together in such a short time. We are doing everything we

can, We have just signed a lease agreement — I signed the papers

Friday — for an additional 500 cars from the Foss Leasing

Company. I'm beginning to suspect, Mr. Member, that both

federal railways are not cooperating as well as they should be

with the provincial railway. I now have the suspicion that the

opposition had some time ago; my suspicions are growing as

evidence comes in. If I find this to be a fact, that both the

CPR and CNR are deliberately withholding boxcars from BC Rail,

then, of course, we will have to take other appropriate

action.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Will the

appropriate action be taken on a per cent of rolling stock?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We won't be threatened by that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can see tomorrow what happens

in the next chapter. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code of British

Columbia Act .

Bill 11 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.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PAYMENT

OF WAGES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Payment of Wages Act .

Bill 40 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.

Motion approved.

CYRIL MORLEY SHELFORD

COMPENSATION ACT

Mr. Richter moves introduction and first reading of Bill 41

intituled Cyril Morley Shelford Compensation Act .

Bill 41 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.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move we proceed to public bills

and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT

[ Page 352 ]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The Veterinary

Medical Act is the legislation which legalizes the Association

of Veterinarians and really sets up this self-policing

organization. At their request we are making some amendments in

that Act, amendments that will not distress anyone, and,

presumably, will help that association in their work of

policing their own members.

Amendments are twofold. Apparently, there is some legal

question as to whether members of the association and/or

members of the council of the association may sit on the

inquiry board. The bill before us will make it quite clear that

the people on that board need not be members of the

association, so they might even be lay members, in whole or in

part.

Beyond that, the amendment proposes that in the event that

costs should be awarded against an offending veterinarian, the

association will have the authority to recover those costs from

that particular veterinarian.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we are

certainly in favour of this housekeeping bill. We feel, of

course, that practical men on boards of inquiries, when they

are involved with professional men, can sometimes lend an

outside view. We concur with the principle of this Act, and

certainly will support it.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if the Minister of Agriculture, in closing the debate — I don't know what things might be included as appropriate

amendments to the Veterinary Medical Act , but in British

Columbia, we don't have a veterinary college and I am sure in

bringing future amendments before the House that it would be

most appropriate if there were a veterinary medical college

that could be consulted. The Minister might very well today,

while we are discussing the amendments to this bill, give us

some indication of the government's policy on a veterinary

college here in British Columbia.

As you well know, Sir, we have advocated this in the past on

many occasions and we feel that now would be the most

appropriate time for the Minister to declare a policy in this

respect.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this party supports

the bill, and we like to hear the Minister mention that the

amendments are being brought in after dialogue with the

veterinary surgeons in the province. The only principle of the

bill, which I hope he would reassure me about, is that the cost

of the inquiry may be borne by the person being investigated,

because it isn't always the fault of the professional — whether

he is a veterinarian, or dentist,

or a doctor — who might be called before a board of inquiry

for reasons which, really, may be either frivolous or

unjustified. I wouldn't like to think that this is just a way

whereby the college can routinely put the costs of the inquiry

in the hands of the individual who is being inquired into. I

notice that the legislation is written in such a way that I

don't think this is a legitimate fear, but I would certainly

like the Minister's reassurance or, that point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am just not sure how we can

talk about the veterinary college under Bill 3, but the

spokesman from the Liberal Party seems to have got away with

some, so perhaps I can answer his question in the same vein, or

at least answer a question.

As he knows well, and I think as most Members are aware,

there is one veterinary college in western Canada. The four

western provinces do cooperate in maintaining the college to

some extent, although most of the cooperation is supplied by

the Province of Saskatchewan.

You may also know that the federal government has recently

announced an expansion of the veterinary college in Saskatoon

to be financed, in part at least, by the federal government.

You may also be aware that, at the request of the Saskatchewan

government, when we inquired whether it would be possible to

get more B.C. students into the college, they told us that

admittance to this college is based entirely on the scholastic

record of the applicants, that it should really be based on the

amount that the sponsoring province is prepared to pay, but

they haven't held to this rule, and suggested that B.C. Is one

of the provinces that should have been paying more in past

years. We are presently negotiating a higher payment towards

that.

With respect to the question raised by the Hon. Leader of

the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), certainly it's my

understanding that his query is in line with the legislation. I

have the assurance of the people who supplied the information

on this bill that it will work that way, but I will check this

just to be absolutely certain before the bill comes up at

committee stage. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 3 referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 353 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

AGRICULTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very old Act. It

was formerly called Farmers' Land-clearing Assistance Act ,

one that has been widely used by farmers in the province. It

has been even more extensively used since amendments were

introduced in the spring session and substantial changes made

in the regulations so that it could be used for many more

purposes. One of the effects of opening it up in that way has

been that there has been a terrific number of applications for

assistance under this legislation. It's used for more purposes

now, and more money is available. It's doing a great deal of

service in the agricultural community. But, as I say, one of

the problems is there's a tremendous flow of paper work across

my desk. So one of the purposes in introducing this minor

amendment is to allow the Minister charged with the

responsibility for this Act to delegate to someone the

authority to sign some of these documents.

The other is where the Farm Credit Corporation is called on

to lend money to a farmer who is borrowing under ALDA, the

Agricultural Land Development Act . In the past, Farm Credit has

insisted on all obligations being paid off so that they could

have a first mortgage on the property. The ALDA rate is

generally much lower than the Farm Credit rate, which is to the

disservice of the farmer if he has to pay off a low-interest

loan to finance everything at a much higher interest.

So what we are saying in this bill before us is that, if a

farmer does have an ALDA commitment against his property, and

if it is in first place, and if he is successfully applying to

Farm Credit for a larger loan, that the provincial government

will move into second, or even lower if necessary, place as

security on that property, so that the farmer will be able to

get maximum benefits from the various lending agencies that

lend to farmers. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: We in the official opposition concur with the

principle of this amendment. We hope that, when the Minister

appoints somebody to do the signing for him, that he will ask

from that person from time to time, and make available to the

House, reports as to the amount of money being used and some

idea as to what areas of land development the money is going

into. In other words, is there a larger portion going into

irrigation, land clearing or other forms of land development?

Maybe the Minister would answer that in his closing

remarks.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we regret that the province, which is supplying the

money to the agricultural industry at low rate, has to take a back seat to Ottawa

by taking second mortgages. This seems to be typical of the eastern financial

interests in Ottawa in wanting to milk the farmer and yet have first refusal

on his land. We're disappointed at Ottawa's attitude in this regard.

It is my hope that British Columbia will bring in

legislation during this fall session that will make null and

void the use of the Farm Credit Corporation; in other words,

the legislation we bring in will, I hope, be much better than

the federal Farm Credit Act , and the money will be supplied at

low-interest rates and will not necessitate a farmer's going to

Ottawa for part of his money. So certainly, we will support

second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We certainly will be

supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, hut a couple of questions

come up.

If the Minister does intend to change the position of the

province with a special repayment on loans, obviously there is

a financial cost involved, and quite obviously his own

department must have done some study as to the amount of money

involved.

One of the purposes of this legislature is to check on the

spending proposals of the Crown and really we haven't heard

from him how much this is going to cost. It's not to say it

shouldn't be done at all. It's simply one of the questions I

thought would be uppermost in the Minister's mind when he

closes this debate, that he'll let us know how much this switch

in the preferred position is going to cost us. Because clearly,

from what he said, the province per se is going down to a much

lower position.

One other comment, Mr. Speaker. We quite appreciate the

Minister has many things to sign. But once again, the problem

with Acts such as this is that we set them up in the

Legislature, we assume the Minister will be responsible, we

assume we'll be able to get at the Minister during the sessions

of the Legislature at least, and yet so often things of this

nature are sloughed off onto civil servants later on. We have

no objection to this being done in this instance because the

Minister, I think properly, explained he has a great burden of

correspondence arising out of this particular Act. I wonder,

though, whether he'd like to indicate, in the same light as the

question I asked about the cost, the amount of time that it

actually does involve.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, naturally we'd be more than

delighted here, as the Liberal leader has said, to do anything

possible to help out the Minister of Agriculture. He's had

quite a lot of difficulty bringing sensible legislation before

the House and, if spending a little more time thinking his

legislation out would help him, we'd be very pleased to

cooperate.

But there's one detail here that has me quite concerned, and

that is that the Minister explained that the intent really was

to allow him to designate

[ Page 354 ]

civil servants to handle the routine signing of the many

documents that come forward.

The legislation says that the Minister is the man designated

by the executive council to be in charge of this Act. I recall,

at the end of the last session, receiving a communication from

the Minister of Agriculture with regard to land development

that came in an envelope from the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). One suspects — and how

can we on this side really know — that the controversial

legislation the Minister of Agriculture introduced last

session, that caused him so much difficulty, was really the

brainchild of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources.

While we intend to support this legislation, I'd feel much

more comfortable about the Minister of Agriculture's position

in the future and his ability to carry his department well, if

I thought the management of lands that genuinely were to be

used for agriculture would be his responsibility and not those

of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

MR. WALLACE: We just wish to go on record as supporting the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the questions

raised by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

as to how much money would be used in total and the report on

the uses made of the money, well of course the money used in

total will be voted by the Legislature. This is one of the

votes in the Department of Agriculture and it will continue to

be one of the votes. That would be the proper time to ask

questions about how the programme is going, how it's being

accepted by the farmer, what good it is doing in the province.

I think a detailed question, such as how much of it is going

into the various agricultural uses into which it might be

going, might very well be a question for the order paper rather

than simply [illegible] during estimates. I would prefer to

have it on the order paper.

Although certainly one of my ambitions, in changing the legislation this way,

is that it will give me more time to look over the total application of the

programme in the broad spectrum, as opposed to signing innumerable certificates

of discharge when a farmer has completed making his payments on the loan. I

can't think of anything less interesting, in my office right now, than having

to sign these documents that were originally signed in some cases by the Hon.

Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) in his capacity as Minister of

Agriculture, and even some before that, and they're finally getting around to

paying them off. Certainly this is of great importance perhaps to the chap who

has completed making the payments, but not of very much importance to the present

Minister of Agriculture.

The question of sliding down on security — the Hon. Member

who asked this question is not in his seat — this in itself

will not cost, unless of course it's necessary to foreclose,

which I can't imagine happening. The record there is extremely

good. Farm Credit itself never seems to have to foreclose, and

certainly we wouldn't expect to have to foreclose, so that in

itself is not going to cost.

However, the question I thought he was going to ask is how

much more is being loaned out with the current interest in the

programme. I don't mean the interest rates but the interest

shown by the farmers, and this is really the question. A good

deal more money is going out. We haven't used up the funds that

were voted by the Legislature in the spring session this year,

but certainly if the activity keeps up at its current rate I

expect to be going back to Treasury asking for more funds to

finance this programme until the Legislature meets again, and I

would hope that Treasury will look on this sympathetically when

I make that application.

The question of signing documents. Of course, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Agriculture currently is named by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as the one responsible for this

legislation. Whether the Minister has the authority to delegate

this to someone in his department or not, it is the Minister of

Agriculture who will be responsible, and responsible to this

House, for what happens in that office, regardless of which

member or members of staff do, and whatever they do. The

Minister still has to bear the responsibility and this Minister

is prepared to accept that responsibility.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — and I forget

whether it is first or second — suggests that there was

legislation introduced in the spring session which caused the

Minister of Agriculture a great deal of difficulty. I suggest,

Mr. Speaker, it caused a great deal more difficulty to the

Members in the opposition than it did to the Minister of

Agriculture.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

[ Page

355 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 includes a number of

relatively minor housekeeping changes in the legislation,

bringing it up to date. I think the one thing of interest in it

is one that one might almost miss in a casual reading of the

legislation. It is the one that really is the reason for

bringing this bill forward at that time, and that is the

authority that it gives to control the movement of retail

packaged milk in the province. It's in line with the programme

on which this party went to the electorate, and that is that we

would do our best to see to it that agriculture had an

opportunity to grow all over the province wherever it is

practical for agriculture to grow and wherever there is a

market for the agricultural produce that can be produced in

those areas.

In the case of milk there have been instances in the past — nothing at the moment that this bill is directed against in

particular — where a local dairy producing industry or local

dairy farmers have found it necessary to bring public pressure

to bear in order to get the chain stores in particular in their

area to accept a fair proportion of milk from the local area,

as opposed to bringing it in from somewhere else. We felt that

if we were going to go out on a programme to try to increase

the production of agricultural products around the province, in

keeping with that and in order to assist should it become

necessary, we should have the authority to control the movement

of packaged milk in retail cartons or packages of any kind.

It's with a view to accomplishing that, as well as the

housekeeping changes in the legislation, that I now move second

reading of Bill 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in the

official opposition agree with the principle of this amendment.

We realize that in order to promote the dairy industry in some

of the more remote areas of the province there must be local

markets, and we also realize, as the Minister says, that

probably the most important part of this bill is that if a

dairy herd is going to be established there must be a

guaranteed tenure of the market. If there's not, the investment

in the herd itself, in land, in buildings and everything will

not come to being. So we certainly concur with this

principle.

I would like, however, the Minister when he closes the

debate to assure me that he's not going to go marching into the

offices of some of these food chain stores and demand to see

their files, like the Gestapo. We don't want any of those

tactics. I guess he can subpoena them, but I'd like some

assurance that we're not going to do this, because even though

they had been moving milk around the markets they have probably

in all consciousness been trying to fulfill the demand.

The rest of it, as you say, is strictly bookkeeping. We concur. I know in my

own area that we would like to see the dairy herd built up. Other than fresh

packaged milk, the majority of the other dairy products are brought in from

Edmonton. I have always felt that we in British Columbia, certainly in this

regard, should be self-sufficient if it means establishment of more dairies

in the north. So we will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

the Minister has touched, certainly, upon the essential

principle in this amendment which he brings forward. We all

understand the problems that the dairy industry has had in this

province and the implications that there have been for dairying

in outlying regions of the province because of large

concentrations of power in the industry, particularly within

the Fraser Valley.

We also recognize the problems that have been created in the

Creston and Kootenay areas with respect to the availability of

milk supplies there, and the proposed change in regulatory

power is one approach to the solution of these. We have had the

absolutely ludicrous situation this year of fluid milk being

shipped from the lower mainland of Vancouver for sale in the

stores in the Okanagan, and milk being shipped by the Noca

Dairy organization in the Okanagan to the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island. When you consider the cost of the

transportation of food products, particularly of perishable

products, this has got to be an increase in expense or cost to

the producer for which there is no logical reason.

However, when we embark upon this particular kind of

solution to this problem, I am concerned at the possibility

that we may be moving towards a Balkanization of this province

in a way in which we have seen a Balkanization of Canada, so

far as availability of food stuffs is concerned, and I would be

happy if the Minister in closing the debate could put my mind

at rest that the application of this regulatory power is not

going to result in that kind of Balkanization. It's true, as

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) says, that in

his area the dairy products, certainly the food and milk

products, come from Alberta. It's a practical necessity.

The facility there is for the processing of milk is the

Alberta Dairy Pool — facilities controlled from outside the

province. Now, it would perhaps be possible, by using this

regulatory power, to supply milk from within British Columbia

to service the needs of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, but

this might be to the serious detriment of the consumer in those

areas. While I am all in favour of making certain that we bring

about orderly production and marketing within the province, I

would like to be assured by the Minister that the use of this

regulatory power is not going to result in disorderly consumer

practices. This is the one concern that we express, even though

approving the legislation in principle.

[ Page 356 ]

I think it is also worthwhile at this stage, Mr. Speaker,

that we mention the other changes that the Minister is bringing

forward. For too long there has been the use, or maybe abuse,

of words denoting a natural product in connection with the

product which has no, or scarcely no, natural components at

all, and I think that this will assist not only the industry

but also the yet-to-be-born Minister of Consumer Affairs'

department in making certain that some of the practices which

we see carried on in retail food stores and in restaurants and

the like will be put an end to once and for all.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this party supports the bill, but

I would just like to enlarge on the point which the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) just raised about the

involvement of a dairy product in an imitation milk product.

Since the previous part of the bill also outlines the principle

that everything has to be documented and spelled out, I really

would like the Minister's comment as to why there is anything

wrong with including a natural product with an imitation milk

product, provided the consumer has it spelled out in black and

white on the label. It would seem to me that you are actually

diminishing the potential to use more dairy products, albeit in

something which is advertised as an imitation product.

There may be a logical answer, but it seems to me that since

we're all trying to give the farmer the widest market for his

products, by restricting in any way the inclusion of a dairy

product — and perhaps if the Minister wishes to discuss this in

committee, I'll be happy to raise it then — but this is a

principle that I think goes beyond just this

section of the

bill, and raises this whole matter of to what degree are

farmers able to use their dairy products at the present time

and this kind of commodity which he is about to ban.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I just wanted to point out that the

dairy farmers in the Courtenay area will certainly welcome this

amendment because they were facing severe difficulties in the

last few years, difficulties so severe that, at times, the

dairymen in our area were considering going out of

business.

One of the problems that was happening in our area was that the large supermarkets

were importing milk from the lower mainland — that is, the Lucerne product for

Safeway and the Foremost product for Super-Valu — and were not devoting much

shelf space to the locally-produced milk which was sold under the Dairyland

label. Now the dairy farmers in our area, in order to survive, had to sell a

large portion of their fluid milk locally in order to get the kind of return

that was necessary to keep them in business. What was happening was that the

Dairyland products were receiving very small shelf space in our area, and our

farmers were forced to ship their milk over to the lower mainland in order to

have it processed into products which brought them in less money than the fluid

milk sales would. In addition to that, they had to pay the freight costs involved

in shipping their milk over to the lower mainland.

Now some time ago — about two years ago as a matter of fact — the farmers in our area got together and discussed the

problem and decided that the best thing they could do was to

bring this whole matter to the attention of the public. As a

result, we had large publicity campaigns, front page stories in

our area concerning the problems that these farmers were

facing. At that time, the public was convinced that they should

support the Dairyland product, that they should be buying the

locally-produced milk, and they were demanding from the

supermarkets that they devote at least 25 per cent of their

shelf space to the Dairyland product. The supermarkets agreed

to this and were, for a time, devoting almost 25 per cent of

their shelf space to the Dairyland product. But, somehow or

other, that was not continued and the farmers again found

themselves in a severe bind.

Finally, the farmers asked to meet with me — and this was

some time before I was elected — but only as a candidate, and

we in our NDP organization up there attempted to help them by

leafletting at supermarkets in the area, again requesting that

the people support the locally-produced Dairyland milk. I know

that the farmers will welcome this legislation because now they

can be assured that enough of their milk will be sold locally

before other milk is imported. Thank you.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I intend to be brief. I

would endorse what my colleague said about our party supporting

this bill, and I know the Minister is aware that the milk

producers in the Interior of this area, a large group of whom I

have the honour to represent, will welcome this

legislation.

One point does come to mind, though, which I would ask the

Minister to comment on, through you, Mr. Speaker, when he's

closing the debate, and that is whether or not there is the

authority within this Act, or the government has considered the

possibility that in retaliation for this Act and controlling

the movement of packaged milk in British Columbia, there is the

authority to stop any under pricing that might be done by a

chain store in a particular area in order to oversell their own

product and try and create an artificial environment where it

would look as if there was not a demand for the local product?

This is a danger, and it has been done before.

They think that possibly, if the authority isn't in this

Act, perhaps an amendment might be in keeping whereby there is

no way that a chain store could embark on any type of price

cutting on a milk product or a dairy product that would put it

below

[ Page 357 ]

the average cost of production in the Province of British

Columbia. I'm not convinced, myself, that that would be a

suitable deterrent or that it would be workable, but perhaps

it's a base from which the Minister and the department might

begin, in order to see that we don't have, as I mentioned, an

artificial climate created which would, in fact, prove to the

detriment of the sales of our milk products from our local

area.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

this looks like a very little innocent Act, but it affects the

baking industry in British Columbia very, very badly.

For example, in 4(c) — and I know we're not supposed to

speak to it now — but if it prevented the use of dried milk in

baking preparation, it would drive prices up in baking quite

substantially, so I would like assurances from the Minister

that this Act won't be handled badly by his bureaucrats.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a

pleasure to get up and support this bill, and I know we're not

talking about particular sections. But the whole principle of

the bill, of having further control over the distribution of

milk in this province, I think has been awaited for many, many

years. There have been attempts, for I don't know how many

years, to control in some way the production and sale of milk

so that the farmer could get a good return and yet guarantee

that an essential product such as this would be available in

all corners of the province. But, like any other legislation

that has been brought in, there are situations which develop

that need further attention, and I'm very happy to see these

amendments brought in.

Travelling with the agricultural committee in some of the

far-away corners of the province, it was so strange to see

tanker trucks taking raw milk out of the Kootenays bound for

the lower mainland, or the north, or somewhere else — you

couldn't tell exactly where — and a few miles later on your

travels, to meet an intercity van-type of truck bringing packaged

milk back to the area where the raw milk was being removed

from. It looked to me as though the milk was being hauled

everywhere in the province for miles and miles to be processed

and sent back, and the local area producers were suffering

because of transportation costs and because so much of their

milk had to be put into the processed market instead of the

fresh-milk market. It was very, very obvious, as the Hon.

Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) pointed out, that there was a

real threat to the industry on Vancouver Island, and I'm hoping

that this legislation is going to go a long way to help correct

this.

The regulations that have been brought in in the past were supposed to be administered

by the board, and in this way they would have some control over the production

and consumption of the product, but over the last few years the situation has

arisen where the supermarkets are actually the ones who have been deciding board

policy. Whether it was in agreement with board policy or not, they were deciding

what milk would be sold where, and how, and who would produce it, and not exactly

what the price would be, but they made a lot of representation by their intrusion

financially into the dairy processing and preparing plants.

I'm very happy to see this come in, Mr. Speaker, and I'm

hoping that it will go a long way to correcting some of the bad

situations that have arisen in the milk-marketing field in this

province.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): I've had a

little experience with the Milk Industry Act , and I recall a

few years ago, and I don't know how many Members sitting in the

House now remember the squabble that occurred over an imitation

product known as Dream Whip. This particular product,

particularly in remote areas such as mining areas, logging

camps and so on, was a product which one former Minister of

Agriculture banned, and another that followed him brought back

on the market again for the simple reason that it was the only

type of product that, by mixing it with milk, you could have an

immediate whipped cream substitute. Now, the fact that the

amount of milk required to mix with it was somewhat less than

having the real product, the whipping cream, it made it quite

possible to have this sort of a topping used in these remote

areas. You didn't require the refrigeration for it and so on

that you would had you had the fresh product.

I would hope that the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would give

consideration for these types of imitation products to be used

in concert with fresh milk permits where it's found impossible

to get daily deliveries, or even weekly deliveries out into

some of the remote areas. I think the people we have living in

those areas, working in those areas, deserve every

consideration in this respect. If permission was given or a

permit was given, the same as it is for reconstituted milk,

well then, I think the legislation deserves support, and I'm

prepared to support it on that basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of the comment

has been with respect to one subsection of a subsection of a

section, and that's fair enough. The way I read 4(3)(

c) is that

it will work as a protection for the consumer so that the

consumer will know whether or not he or she is purchasing a

product that, while it pretends to be one thing, is

[ Page 358 ]

indeed a mixture of other things.

I feel that the proper time to get into a more detailed

discussion of this particular subsection would be in committee

stage. At the moment, I will simply say that as I understand

this and as I read it, it is to protect the consumer. It has

some protection for the producer but is mainly for the

consumer. We will, I suppose, have more detailed discussion in

committee stage.

The only consolation I give the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) in his concern that it will be badly

handled by bureaucrats is that, in part, it is up to him. When

he says "bureaucrats" I understand that he means "civil

servants," and when he talks about civil servants badly

handling anything I say again that Ministers have to be

responsible for what civil servants do; so the best way he can

make sure that this will not be badly handled is to make sure

that the administration does not change. (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was asking

whether we had given any consideration to controlling the

retail price. There is loss-leader legislation on the books

right now. I believe it was the previous administration that

put it on and found it very difficult to use. I think in the

cases where they did try it, it was extremely difficult to

prove a case. It was found to be very expensive and not

particularly acceptable to anybody in the community as a case

to pursue.

We feel by controlling the amount of package milk moving, we

can get the control that we want. If they want to move an

amount that is limited by us, they can move only that amount.

If they want to sell it at giveaway prices, once they have

disposed of it then they have to buy their milk locally.

Certainly the price at which they buy it is set by the Milk

Board so producers will not lose. If they want to give away a

limited amount of milk to benefit the consumers or try to upset

people locally with their local producers, we don't really have

the authority other than the loss-leader legislation and there

is no confidence in this legislation. The loss-leader

legislation would be the place to control that and, as I say,

from my knowledge of it, it didn't work too well. Perhaps your

seatmate could tell you more about the applications of that

legislation.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised the same

question about

section 4(3)(

c) and, as I say, we will have

further discussion of that.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams)

had a question on Balkanization. Whether it may look on first

blush that this agricultural legislation is something designed

to help the individual farmers and the agricultural industry,

what we have in mind ultimately is that this legislation is to

help people — and people generally are consumers.

It may very well be that the community as a whole would be better off if this

were not applied to stop Alberta milk, for example, coming into the B.C. Peace

River. It could be either way; but that is something I think we will want to

bear in mind as to whether, in a situation like that, the authority given under

this legislation should or should not be used. It might well be that it would

be better not to control the movement of milk in a particular area like that.

The possibility that we might go marching into a chain store

like some Gestapo is not really appropriate to this particular

administration. Secondly, if it is necessary to go marching

into a chain store and look at their records to protect the

producers ultimately with a view to protecting the consumers

then we certainly have the authority under this legislation to

do so and we will do so.

I move second reading.

Motion approved, Bill 7 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 8.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE OLEOMARGARINE ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very old Act; it

dates back to 1949. It was introduced at that time, I suppose,

to protect the public, the users of margarine; to control the

conditions under which margarine might be manufactured, stored,

or offered for sale. It was also designed to protect the

producers. In every instance where margarine was being sold, in

every package in which it was contained, in every restaurant

where it was used, it had to be indicated on the menus that

margarine was being served in that restaurant. If there was no

menu, as was the case in some restaurants, then a sign had to

be posted to the effect that margarine was used there, and, as

I say, all packages had to have it on as well.

In this legislation we are simply admitting that margarine

is not used these days as a substitute for butter. Margarine is

used by people who choose to use margarine, maybe for some

economic reasons, maybe for reasons of health. Whether rightly

or wrongly, they choose to use margarine. It is something that

goes back 24 years….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I don't know, I've seen papers on it

both ways. My doctor tells me one thing and the people who are

doing research for F.V.M.P.A. (Fraser Valley Milk Producers'

Association) tell me something else. I choose to

[ Page 359 ]

follow my doctor's advice; that's what I'm paying him

for.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if I choose not to follow his advice

then I would quit paying him, but I choose to follow my

doctor's advice in matters like that. It is his responsibility

to try to keep me healthy.

In any case, the real thing we are doing here is saying: Look, this

is out of date. We are the only province in Canada that is out of step;

everybody

else has followed this direction long ago.

I move second reading of this bill now.

MR. PHILLIPS: We in the official opposition will support

this bill. It is a pretty greasy subject and we will just let

it slide through. (Laughter.)

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I guess this is the final phase

in a 23-year-old Rolston family project. In 1949 my grandmother

first attempted to amend this Act. I am not sure if she was in

the government in 1951, but certainly in 1951 was able to make

amendments, even if it meant bringing a mixer into the House to

convince the male group.

It is long overdue and I'm very proud of this piece of

legislation. I think it stops the inference that margarine is

inferior in any way. As the Minister said, we really don't need

to worry about it being a substitute for butter or any other

substance. I am sure it minimizes previous public suspicions

about its health values and its other qualities. I support the

legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 8 referred to the Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 9.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this may take a little longer. When I

was asked what I expected the reaction would be from the opposition, I predicted

correctly that it would be the same as it was for Bill 42; it would be attacked

mainly on the basis that it was vague and that it gave the government too much

authority. It wasn't very hard I admit to make that prediction, Mr. Speaker.

However, there are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, why it had to be vague, There is

ample evidence — and certainly all kinds of comments since the legislation was

introduced — that there is really only one way to go in this question of farm-income

stabilization, and that is that you have to move commodity by commodity.

Only one province in Canada has introduced legislation of

any kind to stabilize farm incomes and that is the Province of

Prince Edward Island. They chose another route: they chose to

try one particular commodity on for size to see how they got

along and so introduced the Hog Prices Stabilization Act .

The Province of P.E.I. isn't very wealthy and has not yet

been able to get any federal assistance for this. Fortunately

for them, since they introduced the legislation hog prices have

done nothing but go up — and go up very markedly — so that the

producers who are paying an insurance are paying it at the

maximum rate. Prices are up so high for hogs that money is

pouring into the fund. So things are going very well with them,

and, hopefully, before the fund is called upon for payments of

any kind, there will be some federal government participation

in this plan. But in any case, the plan is going well for the

P.E.I. Hog Stabilization Plan.

But hogs are not that terribly important a product here in

the Province of British Columbia. They will be more so, and I

hope we will increase our hog production, but it is one of the

areas where there haven't even been enough hogs produced in the

province to justify setting up a hog marketing board. We had to

go commodity by commodity.

Logically, the first one would be the fruit industry, since

this is where most of the problems seem to be in agriculture in

the province. But even with fruit you have many kinds, and how

can you possibly come up with one plan that would satisfy all

of them? Possibly you can, but it's something that would have

to be worked out with the farmers themselves and/or with their

organization, where the details would have to be arrived at

only after a great deal of discussion with the leaders in the

industry, perhaps with individuals. But certainly it's

something that would take a lot of time.

Before we could put that kind of time into a programme like

that, before we could say that it should be fruit people only,

we felt that we had to have, if you like, enabling legislation

- legislation that would show the provincial government is

prepared to go ahead with a programme to stabilize farm income

for farmers and is prepared to talk with any commodity group in

the province that chooses to discuss it with us and to talk

about the possibility of arriving at a plan that will suit the

particular needs of that special commodity group. In a case

like fruit, it might even be that there would be differences in

the

[ Page 360 ]

plan dealing with different areas of production or different

fruits that are being produced in various fruit-growing areas

of the province — "areas" in plural, because there's not just

one area. There certainly is one main area. There are other

areas outside of that where again it might be necessary to come

up with something a little different.

So the legislation is vague. The legislation clearly says,

though, that under this Act the government will have the

authority to negotiate with the farmers in any commodity group,

preferably with their organization, of course, a plan in which

the producers themselves would be asked to participate on a

premium basis. The government itself is prepared to

participate, as we do with the crop insurance plan, And while

it's not in the legislation, the legislation does provide, or

is vague enough if you like, that it can fit in with almost any

programme that the federal government may come up with that

would enable them to participate in an income stabilization

programme with us. Those are the things we wanted to achieve.

We wanted to make it possible that the legislation would enable

the government to negotiate for a crop stabilization plan with

members of any commodity group, We wanted to make it possible

that we could negotiate with the federal government for an

income stabilization plan for farmers — again farmers in any

group — or whatever way the federal government felt was the

best way of achieving this.

The Cattlemen's Association, in a brief presented to the

conference that I attended in Ottawa last week, did say at one

point, with reference to this commodity by commodity

approach:

"Before proceeding further, it is probably necessary to

narrow the field to the beef commodity, for it is our view that

the question of stabilization of agricultrual. product prices,

if it is to be approached at all, must be approached on a

commodity by commodity basis. Quite obviously the problems t

hat confront the various commodities at any point in time are

very different, and it is not only these differences but the

characteristics of each commodity sector itself that requires

differing responses and different solutions."

And it's with that thinking in mind that the legislation was

introduced in the Legislature in what has been described as a

very vague form.

Apart from this commodity by commodity approach, there has been the indication,

really not much more than that up until last week, that the federal government

was prepared to look seriously at this question of stabilizing farm income.

At least, under the current Minister of Agriculture from time to time there

have been statements to that effect. In Prince Edward Island at the provincial

Ministers' conference the Minister made it plain, and previous to that in meetings

and again at the Calgary conference he said that he was not prepared to talk

about stabilization of farm income unless we were prepared to talk also about

orderly marketing and controlled production.

In one recent speech there are just a couple of things that

I've underlined. In response to this question that was raised

by the Prime Minister very recently as to how we maintain

agricultural production at its present levels and how we get

increases in production, his answer was, "It takes better

returns, better income, and more stability." So in this the

federal government is recognizing the need for stability.

He's talking about critics of marketing boards, really, and

that's what this particular speech was about, in the main.

Describing these critics, or in talking about them: "These same

critics have failed completely to see the link between

stabilization and planned production and marketing. You can't

have one without the other." Certainly, with that in mind, I

was determined that B.C. would join the National Egg Marketing

Agency before I ever went back to Ottawa last week to discuss

any assistance or any cooperation the federal government might

offer with respect to stabilization of farm income.

In Ottawa at the same time, some of the Ministers — not all

of them and not as many as we all had hoped — did sign an

agreement for a national turkey marketing plan. Some of the

provinces stayed out because they wanted to talk more about the

new feed grains policy and were not prepared to talk about

anything else really till there was some further discussion of

that. But a number of the provinces, including B.C., signed the

national turkey marketing plan. We are prepared in B.C. to talk

about the things that Mr. Whelan, the federal Minister of

Agriculture, urges us to. talk about before he will consider

any plans for stabilization.

A good deal of the conference in Ottawa was about this

question of stabilization of income. It was indicated to us in

press reports and in the telegram that this would be part of

the discussion at the conference in Ottawa. I may say that the

conference almost broke down in the morning when these three

provinces, in particular the three prairie provinces, wanted to

talk about grain policy and nothing else, recognizing that they

couldn't possibly change the feed grains policy at that

meeting, admitting this quite openly, but still insisting that

we discuss it and that we arrive at some common position on it,

knowing all the time that it's just impossible to arrive at a

common position unless those three Ministers happen to be

absent at the time we arrived at it, because everybody else

felt one way and the three Ministers from the Prairies felt

quite differently about it. But in any case we did in the

afternoon finally get onto a discussion of stabilization of

farm income.

A paper was presented by an economist from the

[ Page

361 ]

CDA, Canada Department of Agriculture, a Dr. Trant. He discussed in general principles the idea of

stabilization of income and raised some questions. I'm going to

repeat some of the questions and some of the discussion at

Ottawa, not just with a view to telling you about some of our

thinking and what will be guiding us in the future, but also

during the course of my presentation this afternoon, to raise

some questions that I am going to throw at you, with a view to

seeking some advice and to see what the reaction is from the

opposition to the proposals that were made in Ottawa, to see

the proposals that we have, that we will be discussing with the

various commodity groups.

In talking about stabilization, and I certainly don't intend

to read everything, one of the questions that he raised was

that possibly all producers in a specific commodity group have

to be involved in a programme. Now, he didn't say under some

circumstances. I'm prepared to admit and the legislation is

prepared to admit that in some instances it just might be

necessary for all the producers in a particular commodity group

to be included. I think in other instances it would be better

if they weren't all. But he suggested that in some cases it

might be, because if all the producers in a commodity group are

going to benefit, well then should they not all be part of the

plan and should they not all pay premiums in a situation where

they are all going to benefit? Not necessarily would they all

benefit in every situation, but if in drawing up a plan for a

particular commodity group all of them were going to get the

benefit, then should they not all contribute?

Secondly, it's possible in some situations, in the case of

some commodity groups, that the scheme might fail unless there

was 100 per cent participation in it — 100 per cent loosely,

but with limits, This again was one of his questions.

Thirdly, quite apart from the producers contributing, in any

scheme to stabilize farm income it's not just the farmer that's

benefiting but also the consumer. I believe I spoke on this

earlier, or perhaps it was outside of the House, when I drew on

the experience of the egg situation in British Columbia. I

guess that was in the throne speech debate when I gave that

example.

So certainly stabilized prices and orderly marketing

benefit the consumers, under some circumstances at least. It

also benefits the agri-business sector. So if all of those

people are going to benefit from any system of stabilizing farm

income, this certainly justifies participation in the programme

by the senior levels of government, provincial and federal.

Those are some of the things that I noted from Dr. Trant's speech. There's

one thing I noted that I didn't agree with and I made a point of saying so.

He kept talking about stabilized prices. Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned

stabilized prices don't mean anything unless they are stabilized with respect

to the costs of production. It's not enough to fix the price that the farmer

is getting for produce unless you have some control over his cost of production.

So I kept saying we should be talking not about stabilized prices, but about

some kind of income assurance, and that is the name of the legislation before

us, an Income Assurance Act .

In the afternoon the federal Minister gave us some of his

ideas. I was interested in them; some of them sounded very

exciting, and I asked him just what status these are. Are

these things you thought about in the morning when you were

listening to the talk about the feed-grain problems? Are these

proposals you have made to cabinet? Are they proposals you have

discussed at length in your own department? Just where do we

sit on these?

He told us then that they are proposals that he has not made

to cabinet yet. They have been discussed in his own department

and he likes them, But he told us also that around the room

there were a lot of civil servants from the various departments

who would be interested in what was happening in agriculture:

the Finance department, for example, was there; the director of

Regional Economic Expansion was there with some of his staff;

some of the staff from Otto Lang's department were there on the

feed-grain situation.

And he said: "Unless you Ministers are prepared to give me some backing and

show me that you support the proposals that I am going to take to cabinet, I

am going to have a pretty hard job selling them to my cabinet colleagues." So

I certainly made a point of indicating my support — or otherwise — as he made

his points one by one.

There is

an Act that does give the federal Minister some

authority to help agriculture. The Agricultural Stabilization

Act is badly out of date and a long time since it has been used

in B.C. I do not think it is used to any great extent in Canada

at all right now because it is so badly out of date.

Nevertheless, it is still available. He suggested that there

should be some changes in this legislation: in some cases,

changes by regulation; in some cases, changes in the

legislation itself.

The first change he suggested. Currently there is an

averaging period of 10 years; it pays on the basis of the

10-year historical average. Now, a 10-year historical average

in the face of today's rapidly changing prices and costs really

doesn't mean much unless your percentage on top of that is very

substantial. Even then, it is of no use except to supply a

figure. He is proposing that this be reduced to five years or

even three. The point that I made is that unless you relate it

to costs of production, it really doesn't mean very much.

The second point. Under the legislation right

[ Page 362 ]

now, the minimum percentage the government might apply to

this 10-year average is 80 per cent. He did say that in some

cases they go considerably higher. In the case of the milk

industry, right now they go 160 per cent for industrial milk.

So there is a minimum, but it's been a long time since even

that minimum of 80 per cent has been used. Nevertheless, they

have to go to cabinet to get approval to go above the 80 per

cent. That is the limiting factor.

Whereas if that limiting

figure were higher and were applicable in any circumstance,

then he would not have to go to cabinet to get approval to

invoke the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization

Act .

He asked us what we thought about increasing the support

level, suggesting that support levels be modified in

description so that they would recognize changing costs. Of

course, this was one of the exciting things. There is no

mention of this in the current legislation that would require a

change in the legislation itself. So the price guaranteed under

the Agricultural Stabilization Act would be related to costs of

production.

It is a new concept altogether, and yet it is one that he

felt could be included in this legislation.

There are a restricted number of agricultural products that

this Act applies to, and I have the list. His suggestion was

that the number of products be increased. The list is now ten;

it could go up from 10 to include almost any imaginable

product. Again, they can do it for any product at all, but

unless it is on the list they would have to go back to the

cabinet to get approval to bring in a new product. His

suggestion was that they might increase the list.

The next point is another new concept altogether and a very

interesting one: we should explore the possibility of a joint

federal-provincial programme to participate in the management

and financing of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This was

the very thing I wanted to hear when I went back to Ottawa. The

federal Minister was prepared to talk about joint

federal-provincial participation in a programme to finance and

to agree to proposals that would enable us to stabilize farm

income commodity by commodity.

I asked him very specifically: if this particular

recommendation were accepted by his cabinet colleagues and if

it were passed as an amendment to the Agricultural

Stabilization Act , would this enable the federal government to

enter into an agreement right now with the P.E.I. government on

their Hog Stabilization Plan, since that is the only one that

is actually in effect? He said that the way he sees it, if he

got approval for this it would enable him to do just that even

though P.E.I. is one of a group of Atlantic provinces and a

situation like that is very hard to control in one small

province. He felt that hogs are something that should be

controlled at least area by area if not nationally.

But nevertheless, the change that he is going to recommend, assuming that he

had received support there — and he did get support; he certainly got support

from myself — would enable him to enter into an agreement even with just the

one province in a situation like that where likely it would not be in the best

interests of the community or the country as a whole to do it province by province.

So his authority to do that would be the one thing likely to encourage the producers

and government in a group of provinces, if not the whole country, to get together

in that particular programme.

That's all to do with the Agricultural Stabilization Act .

There is another Act which allows the federal government to

make advance payments on wheat, oats and barley within the

designated area. Under the agricultural stabilization programme

they guarantee the money to a marketing board or some group

such as that. The money is available, the federal government

guarantees it, so the co-op group, or whatever it is, would

actually borrow the money with a federal government guarantee.

But then the producers are stuck with paying the interest.

Under the advance payment Act, the money is actually made

available by the federal government so there is no interest to

pay. The community as a whole is paying the interest; the

producers of that particular product are not charged with the

interest.

He is considering recommending that the products to which

the advance payment legislation applied should be extended to

include almost any product. Of course, it would have to depend

upon the producer delivering it to some common packing house,

as in the case of apples. But if the producer did deliver them

to the packing house, they are in storage and this can be

verified. The federal government would then make available the

money to pay advance payments to the producers in that

particular situation. This, too, was quite interesting.

There is also the Agricultural Products Co-operative

Marketing Act . I'm sorry, I was talking about the Agricultural

Stabilization Act ; that is not the one where the money is

borrowed. It is the Agricultural Products Co-operative

Marketing Act where the money is borrowed. Yes, I see everybody

nodding. I'm glad I came to that.

Point No. 3. Another programme in his list of goodies, and

why he bothered with the new concept under the Agricultural

Stabilization Act — as he said, these were just ideas that have

been kicked around in his department. This is a separate

programme entirely: a federal-provincial producer price

stabilization programme — we would develop special plans

outside of any existing legislation that will enable the

federal government to enter into negotiations with any province

for income stabilization — not price but income stabilization — commodity by commodity.

He made the point again that in the case of some products he

would insist that there be participation in agreements

nationally to control production and marketing. But beyond

that, as I

[ Page 363 ]

pointed out in the case of fruit — and he agreed — it is not

that easy to control production. He recognized that in that

particular situation it would have to be a different proposal

altogether, emphasizing, if you like, the idea that it has to

be something that is negotiated commodity by commodity.

To those of you who served on the agriculture committee, he

discussed the operation of a surtax particularly in the

agricultural industry. He raised the problems and said that he

would welcome some support for an automatic surtax, something

which has been sought time after time for years by the

horticultural industry in the Province of British Columbia. Our

producers feel, in particular, that they are too often sold out

in the interests of getting some sort of a tariff protection

for industry back east.

But in any case, he is prepared to push this idea of an

automatic surtax. We discussed how it has worked in the past — it is so slow to come into effect. In the case of cherries — I

suppose it is history now — the cherries came on the market in

Washington state at $8 a crate originally, and they were

selling them to us at that price. Then as the volume increased

and as the time for ours to come on the market approached, the

price dropped from $8 down to $7.50 to $7. When ours finally

hit the market, the Washington cherries were being offered to

us at $5.90, which, of course, meant that the price for B.C.

cherries had to start at that $5.90 figure and then presumably

go on down, which would be an intolerable situation. Pressure

from the industry, the growers, their organizations and the

provincial government, and pressure from the federal Minister

of Agriculture — and I certainly give him full marks for this — made it possible to apply that surtax, although, as they said,

this is something that still may be questioned by the

Americans. They may still come and say that we did damage to

their industry.

I think they would have a pretty hard case making it

because, as an indirect result of us putting on this automatic

surtax and putting, if you like, a floor. price into effect in

the Province of British Columbia, the reaction in the American

market was to increase the price for their producers — not a

great deal, but somewhat. So it is going to be hard to show

that we damaged their industry. But the Deputy Minister said

that there's still the possibility that there might be some

cost as a result of that action.

Another point he made, and he is considering some legislative changes — without

getting into any details at all — was the question as to whether there should

be greater use of marketing boards and national agencies for the various commodity

groups. He is a firm believer in marketing boards; he is a firm believer in

the development of the national agencies for the various commodity groups. He

welcomes support, as he got it from the various provinces for this, and feels

that this is the route to go if we are going to achieve anything in the way

of stabilization of income for B.C. producers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I am adding something to the Members'

knowledge of why we chose to go this route; why we chose to

come in with vague legislation; why it had to be commodity by

commodity; why we were anxious to leave it in a form whereby it

would fit in with the federal government.

Representatives of the federal government were almost

waiting for us to arrive so that they could get copies of the

bill and copies of the notes that we had. Ministers and

Deputies from all of the other provinces were making the same

request for copies of the legislation and copies of any

material that we had. We've done calculations to show how this

might apply in the fruit industry in particular. One of the

questions that has been asked — and perhaps I could wait and

let these questions be asked during the course of this debate,

but….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I won't adjourn it; but if anybody

likes to….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Usually, if anyone wants to adjourn the debate,

the matter is….

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, the House Leader can consider that

and I'll now go on for awhile.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I thought I was losing everybody for

awhile- but they seem to have had their coffee break and ~ave

come back in.

In some notes that I have had prepared by staff on this Farm

Income Assurance Act one of the questions raised was just how

you do arrive at production costs. This again is one of the

reasons for having to do it commodity by commodity. In the case

of some commodities it's fairly easy to arrive at some sort of

an index, if not the true cost. We have achieved this, for

example, in the case of milk to a greater degree of

sophistication than we have in any other province in the

Dominion of Canada.

I can still use the word "Dominion", can't I? I am not sure

in these days.

In any case, you recall, Mr. Speaker, the recently announced

federal programme to roll back consumer prices. Provinces have

been trying to negotiate with Ottawa as to just how this would

take effect in the various provinces in Canada. To date, two

provinces

[ Page 364 ]

have reached agreement as to how it would apply: the

Province of Quebec and the Province of Saskatchewan.

In the case of Quebec, they rolled back consumer prices by 3

cents, after increasing them just days before by 2 cents. In

the case of Saskatchewan, the same thing. They rolled back the

price there, I think, 4 cents, but just a matter of days before

that they had increased it 3 cents.

Now we don't handle our milk that way in the Province of

British Columbia. We are different in British Columbia. Our

milk price to the producer changes in accordance with the

formula calculation. So when it came to discussing what B.C.

would do, it had to be an entirely different concept, a concept

which is being considered, I hope, by the federal cabinet

today. I haven't had word yet as to whether the federal

government has advised us of its decision.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: …well, not there, no. I would rather…I just feel that I cannot discuss the details until the

federal cabinet have had an opportunity to discuss it. As I

say, I hope we will know soon. But they recognize that B.C. Is

different. So not only do we have differences in commodity

groups, but when we are talking about Canada as a whole, we

have substantial differences in the way these things are

handled province to province.

Okay, in B.C., in trying to calculate costs, we would have

to look at an economic unit. Some of our farmers are farming

part-time, producing a multiplicity of products, so we have to

look at what an economic unit is for a particular commodity. We

would have to assume… or, not assume; we would have to to

sure, if that particular individual were being used as part of

a calculation of the production costs for that commodity group,

that he is a reasonably efficient manager — not the best in the

province, but that he is efficient.

We would have to be assured that he is using fairly modern

technology — again, not someone who has a lot of money to

invest and can put in the best and most modern of everything — but that he is making use of modern technology. We would have

to be assured that he is growing crops in the quantities that

are recommended, crops of the species that are recommended for

that area; in other words, that he is prepared to discuss his

programme with the Department of Agriculture and with

experienced people generally; that he is a reasonably good

producer, then, in every way; that he is prepared, of course,

to enter into an agreement; that he is prepared to ensure

stability of his own income.

In calculating the costs, of course, the direct costs

obviously would have to be included.

Then we come to the question of family labour. Now at what rate should family labour be paid: family-labour

children, family-labour wife? What about the operator himself?

At what rate should an operator who is managing an enterprise,

which might be an investment of $50,000 or $250,000…?

AN HON. MEMBER: Farm Credit allowance is $1 an hour.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A dollar an hour, farm credit allowance?

Well, I'd welcome some ideas on that now. Do the Members

opposite think that the Farm Credit rate of a dollar an hour

for a man who is running that enterprise is adequate, is too

much or is too little? Should he get something not only for the

time that he puts in, but for his managerial ability or

otherwise? We are talking about an efficient producer, so it

should be ability.

What rate of interest, if any, should be included for the

capital, whether he's borrowed it or whether it's his own?

Should we include interest on that capital investment in

calculating our cost of production? And if we should include

it, at what rate should we include it?

The department has done some calculations to show the effect

of putting such a programme into effect in the fruit industry.

If you used basic minimum figures, if you like…I'm not

suggesting for one moment that these are the figures that would

be used in any programme. But in arriving at a cost of

production for apples — and this is not a costing job that was

done in connection with this programme, but it was done fairly

recently; and just to give you some idea, it was done by two

different groups, DataTech in California and our own people

working in British Columbia — interest on investment was

calculated.

It varied, depending on which study you took, but they felt

that 7 to 8 per cent was a reasonable figure as a return on

investment. They argued, contrary to what farm credit says,

that skilled labour — and this would be the operator himself — is worth $3 an hour. Now how does that strike you? They said,

that unskilled labour should be $2 an hour, the basic minimum

wage in the province for unskilled labour.

On top of that they said that there should be a overhead

figure of 5 per cent to cover the various costs such as taxes,

if you like, and that in addition to, all that there should be

a return for management itself at the rate of 5 per cent of his

gross sales.

Now these are some of the things. And if you use all those

figures, if you take an efficient producer, if you take the

1973 figures….

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You've wiped out every

farmer in the country.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Pardon me? If you use

[ Page 365 ]

those figures, you come up with a cost of producing apples

in the Okanagan — for an efficient producer for 1973 — of 5

cents a pound, and I think there are some who are getting

that.

The group of producers that were included in this particular

study were getting 81 per cent Extra Fancy or Fancy — or

better, of course. So if you load all the costs of production

onto those apples, because the ones below that really aren't

worth enough to recover any of the costs, then the cost of

producing those marketable apples worked out to 6.1 cents a

pound.

If you take the Co-operative Products Marketing Act and say

that the federal government, if participating in a programme

like this, would pay on the basis of an 80 per cent return over

a three-year average, then in 1968 the farmer would have

received 5.76 cents.

Now with the cost calculated at 5 he would have received

5.76 in 1968; 5.67 in 1969; 4.76 in 1970; 4.05 in 1971 — below

the cost of production. In 1972, 4.67; that's working on 80 per

cent of the three-year moving average. If you took it on the

three-year moving average without reducing it to 80 per cent,

in every year he would have received the 5 cents.

Now, I am not suggesting that 5 cents is enough. I gave you

some of the basis for calculating that figure and, as I say,

I'm not suggesting that it's anywhere near enough. But, using

that figure and working on the 3-year average, in 1969 the

federal government, if it were going to pay on the basis of 80

per cent of the 3-year average, would have paid $1,912,000 into

an income assurance programme; the provincial government, in

making up the difference to the 5.76 cent figure, would have

$408,763.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In that particular year. But, you see, it

depends on what the price is.

In 1970, it's the other way around. The federal would have

paid $1,130,000, the provincial would have paid $1,940,000, for

a total of $3 million. In 1971, the province only would have

paid, and the amount involved would have been only $22,646.

In the last five years, 1968-1972 inclusive — and this

is just an arithmetical figure; it's not taking into account

the total production, but it's taking the average received for

each year for Fancy and Extra Fancy or better — but the average

price received was 4.956 cents in those years.

You remember we said that the cost of production of that

particular kind of apple was 6 cents, So on the average, in the

last five years, they have not received even that cost of

production.

In some cases, they would not just have received the proposed income stabilization

plan we're talking about in this legislation. In some of those years the low

returns were the result of crop loss which is insured, so in some of those years

there would have been crop insurance payments. In addition, under the proposed

legislation, using these figures only, there would have been payments under

the income stabilization plan. I don't know if these figures…. They're all

available of course and they may be in a better form here. If people want to

see them,,they're certainly welcome to them.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it has been informative….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, I'm not prepared. I've been watching

the clock. I had decided ahead of time just how long I was

going to speak on this, and I've reached that time. So I'll

just say this, Mr. Speaker, I know the bill is difficult to

deal with, the bill as it is. I've said why it is vague, why it

is….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is some distress about

this legislation. I have one newspaper clipping. When I got

back from Ottawa, there was a whole pile of them on my desk,

but there's just one in particular, and just one little clause

I'll read out of it: "Growers today were enthusiastic about the

income insurance plan." I think that there are some people

discouraged about this plan, and those people are confined to

the ranks of the opposition. The farmers themselves, from

everything I read, are encouraged by the plan, I move second

reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: I must say that now I am as confused as the

Minister of Agriculture over this legislation, and I'm

certainly more convinced than I was before that the Minister of

Agriculture really doesn't know where he's going. He doesn't

know where he's going on this legislation. He has no idea

whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against it'?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, as a matter of fact I'm going to commence

my remarks by saying, Mr. Minister, that we support the

principle of the Farm Income Assurance Act . I stated my

position, and the position of this party, on guaranteed income

for farmers in the spring session, before Bill 42 and before

the Minister started to rush headlong down a path to bring in

this bill. We stated our position, stated that it needed to be

surveyed, stated certain reasons for it.

When the Minister said that he knew what the reaction of the

opposition was going to be, it merely pointed out to me that he

knew he was bringing in

[ Page 366 ]

very vague legislation; he knew himself that, at this point

in time, he should not have brought in the legislation because

he really doesn't know how he's going to implement it. So, by

saying that he knew the reaction immediately of the opposition,

he was certainly correct. He recognized his own position, and

he recognized that he doesn't really know where to go or what

direct method to take.

Now it's amazing to me, Mr. Speaker, that the subject of a

farm income assurance was not referred to the Standing

Committee on Agriculture for study. The only brief that the

committee had, in this regard of guaranteed assurance, was a

brief submitted from the Peace River–Liard Regional District,

and it was submitted to us in essence after the fact because it

wasn't within our terms of reference. The only way that you

could have done so at all would have been to tie it into our

terms of reference which said we should study the agricultural

potential of the Peace River area and, by so doing, that we

might have said that it would be necessary to guarantee the

income of the farmers in order to reach the full potential of

that area.

But the committee, from time to time, when certain subjects

would come up, and in the absense of the Minister, would for

moments talk about guaranteed farm income. But it was our

opinion, and I think that the Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) will bear me out on this, that this was too

complicated a subject and, until we finished our studies, we

couldn't really do justice to it and at any rate it wasn't in

our terms of reference.

The matter evidently was referred instead to the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, who were paid a sum of money to come

up with recommendations in this regard. I'd like to ask the

Minister of Agriculture if he will table the recommendations of

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in this Legislature so that

all of us can have an opportunity to look at them.

Now some of it was printed in the Country Life paper, but

the

section dealing with guaranteed income was not. I would

like to ask the Minister to tell us, when he closes debate on

this particular bill, if he will table in the House all of the

documents that he received from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, because they might be very enlightening to the

rest of the Members of this House. I'm disappointed that they

haven't been given to us prior to this so that we could maybe

have some idea of what the Minister was saying.

Now this piece of legislation that we have before us is

really not legislation at all, and I think the Minister knows

that. All that we were told in Bill 9 is the government's

position with regard to farm income stabilization and

guaranteed income. It really doesn't tell us how the government

intends to do this. It's a philosophy. It's a position, and

it's a position which the official opposition agrees to.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): It's enabling

legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Enabling? Yes, it's enabling. It certainly,

Mr. Attorney General, is one of the greatest pieces of enabling

legislation that I have ever seen, because it enables the

Minister of Agriculture to do almost anything that he wants to

do. And that is not the purpose of our coming to Victoria. The

purpose of our coming to Victoria is to discuss detailed

legislation, not to talk in vague terms about theories and

positions.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's deliberately vague.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, says

it's deliberately vague.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: And he says it's deliberately vague to give

him a wide scope of power. It's deliberately vague….

HON. MR. STUPICH: I didn't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think that's what you really meant, a

wide scope of bargaining….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Agriculture would tell us exactly what he does mean, because

all he did in introducing this bill this afternoon was to

introduce a wide-ranging number of questions that have to be

answered before this bill can actually function. And he stole a

whole lot of my questions, because I had the same things that I

was going to ask the Minister to answer when he closed the

debate. But the Minister doesn't know the answers. We're going

to have to know the answers to some of these questions, Mr.

Speaker, before we can vote on this legislation.

There is no mention of what this is going to cost the

Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Now maybe the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) doesn't know…not

maybe he doesn't know; I know the Minister doesn't know. I know

full well he doesn't know. So there again, typical of the

Minister of Agriculture, he's asking us to sign him a blank

cheque on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province of British

Columbia to implement a plan that he doesn't know how much is

going to cost. Is it going to cost $S million or $100

million?

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) doesn't know how

much it's going to cost, yet he's the chief financier of the

province — and evidently he doesn't care. Well, this is fine if

he wants to implement his

[ Page 367 ]

philosophy. But he's going. to have to care if he's going to

protect the rights of the ratepayers and the taxpayers and the

citizens of British Columbia not only today, but in the

future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will come up in the budget.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it will come up in the budget. After

we've already signed the blank cheques, then it will come up in

the budget and you'll tell us how much you've spent. Absolutely — after the facts.

I intend to keep my remarks confined and as brief as

possible, Mr. Speaker, but I must bring up a couple of points.

Mr. Charlie Bernhardt, the president of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, feels that the programme envisions a formalized

negotiating mechanism between producers and the provincial

government. Now the Minister of Agriculture didn't say anything

about a formalized negotiating mechanism to come up with

establishing prices which the producer will receive for his

merchandise; he never mentioned a thing about it. Yet evidently

this was in the recommendation given him by the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture, when closing the

debate, to explain to me if he is envisioning a formalized

negotiating mechanism — something similar to an arbitration

board — or is it to be the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who's

to come to the department and say, "This is the cost of

producing this particular item." I'd like to know. Because if

this organization that he has paid to bring in these

recommendations have given this consideration and they envision

a formalized negotiating mechanism, then the Minister, in

reading these recommendations, must have given it some thought.

Yet he didn't mention that this afternoon when he was opening

the debate.

It's very interesting. Would it be the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture that would be the mechanism; would it be the

farmers union; would it be the agricultural committee, or would

it be a group of producers and legislators together? I don't

know. I t's very interesting because certainly some mechanism

will have to be set up to come up with this very ticklish

problem. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, the whole plan will

fail or succeed on this very subject: what is the cost of

production and how much return should the farmer have?

We realize on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, that we must stabilize farm

incomes if agriculture is to remain as an industry. We found out in the agricultural

committee this summer that young people are just not taking to the plough. They're

finding more lucrative jobs elsewhere and, I think, in some instances maybe

not more challenging jobs, but certainly jobs that will give them a greater

security in the future.

We find that in this province, in a period when food is

short in the world, there are vacant farms. We find a lot of

farmers who are working only part-time and the rest of the time

are taking up jobs which are really putting other people out of

work. We in turn pay unemployment insurance to those people

displaced. I mentioned this in the spring.

This will have to be taken into consideration: is the

part-time farmer going to be put in the position, Mr. Speaker,

where he will be able to remain on his farm for 12 months a

year? Will he, by legislation or by the method in which this

Act is implemented, be forced to remain on his farm and thus

stay out of the labour market which is causing problems

elsewhere in society?

We know that a lot of families are leaving the country and

flocking to the cities. In implementing this Act are we going

to go on the principle that the family farm units should remain

at all costs, or at partial costs? Is the theory behind

implementing this particular Act going to be that, "Yes, we

want the family farm to remain as a viable unit whether it is

really economically feasible or not in terms of dollars and

cents." It might be economically feasible if we think of all

the other social aspects of it.

These are just some of the problems that we must work out,

Mr. Speaker. They are formidable problems, but certainly not

insurmountable if we take an intelligent view and take the time

that is going to be needed to work them out. This is where the

crux of the whole situation comes in, as far as I'm concerned,

Mr. Speaker. We must take the time to work this plan out,

because it is the largest plan involving agriculture and the

largest piece of legislation that has been brought in in quite

some time.

How are we going to deal — and the Minister brought this up

himself — with the problem of imported produce from other

countries? How are we going to deal with the problem of

imported produce from other provinces? Will we have the people

of British Columbia paying through taxation while imported

products cream the market? I think the Minister mentioned some

of these problems when he was introducing this legislation.

There must also be implemented in the workings of this Act

incentives to assure a continual search for quality and for

better production. Is this legislation going to be tied to a

policy of better education for younger farmers — more

agricultural facilities in the secondary schools or in the

vocational schools throughout the province?

Is Ottawa prepared to increase their grants to experimental

farms in Canada? Will there be more research done? We could

find that we are paying out large sums of money to implement

the Farm Income Assurance Act and not spending any money on

[ Page 368 ]

research, which would be the best place to spend it.

In the communique that came from Ottawa Mr. Whalen stated

that, "Farmers must be protected through the slow sales

period." Are some of these periods caused by people in the

agricultural industry who wish to manipulate the prices, Mr.

Speaker? This is just another one of the areas of responsibility

that certainly must receive a lot of study.

The thing that really bothers me, and I've spoken about this

before, Mr. Speaker, is whether British Columbia and Canada is

working toward world food banks to curb the feast-or-famine

policies of the past. I mentioned this in the spring session of

the Legislature. If we're going to have farm income assurance

in Canada then we're going to have to work to make sure that

all the food stuffs of the world are controlled, and indeed get

rid of some of these feasts or famines that we've known in the

past.

Another question that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is how much

this is going to cost the farmer. If all of the profits from

the good years go into an insurance policy to pay the premiums

for the benefits he will receive in the poor years, he is not

going to be in any better position than he is right now.

Because this, in essence, is what is happening by himself.

There must be an incentive for him to make a profit, and a good

profit, during the good years and still be protected. This is

where the guarantee comes in. When a surplus of a given product

appears, will he be given incentives to produce other products?

Or will the guaranteed insurance income work toward producing

too much in a given area of a specific product? That's why

planning and market surveys are going to be so very, very

important, and must be worked in conjunction with this

legislation.

Another thing I have to ask myself, Mr. Speaker, is how much

input will the ecologists have on the future of agriculture

once this plan is implemented? Will we find that land will be

taken out of production in British Columbia? Will the

ecologists want to preserve the largest portion of British

Columbia for their own private hunting domain at the expense of

consumers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ecologists don't hunt.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well if the ecologists, Mr. Premier, don't

hunt, they certainly want to save the privileges for a lot of

their friends who do.

Probably this is the biggest piece of legislation dealing

with agriculture that has been brought in in a long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: And one of the best.

MR. PHILLIPS: One of the vaguest; certainly one of the

vaguest.

Mr. Speaker, I think if you will look at the terms of

reference of the agricultural committee — and we spent five

weeks travelling this summer and would have spent more; we still

haven't finished — what were we dealing with? We were dealing

with the problem of grazing as it pertains to wildlife; we were

to look into the vegetable and fruit marketing industries, the

potential of the Peace River area, and a pension plan.

Now overriding all of these, far greater in all of its

aspects, far greater in its potential, without any reference

whatsoever to the agriculture committee, comes in Bill 9, Farm

Income Assurance Act . Now why the great rush to bring this

legislation in when we really don't know, and the Minister

doesn't really know, how he's going to implement it. He doesn't

have any of the answers; he proved here this afternoon he

doesn't have any of the answers.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, let me tell you, what the answer should

have been.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Some leader; some

legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier comes into the middle

of my very important talk and doesn't know the great things I

have said about this bill beforehand.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you promise this is the middle?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as a matter of fact, it's past the

middle. And it's regrettable (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Members must not attack their

own speeches. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is really regrettable, in a

bill of this magnitude, that it's very difficult to discuss it

because we really don't know how it's going to be implemented.

That is a very grave problem with this piece of

legislation.

Problems of one area of the province to bring in the Farm

Income Assurance Act are going to be far different from

problems in another area. We have to consider marketing

transportation, capital, taxation, land use, know-how and, as I

said before human

[ Page 369 ]

resources, both the social and political aspects of this

Act.

This very important matter would have been much better dealt

with had the Minister of Agriculture brought it in in the form

of a resolution, and asked the House: Do you agree with me?

Will you give me the power to negotiate with Ottawa, to

negotiate with the other provinces, in trying to come up with a

guaranteed farm income assurance?

Then we could have said to him in debate on the motion: Yes,

Mr. Minister, we are agreed with that. We give you authority to

go ahead and, if necessary, negotiate with Ottawa, negotiate

with the other provinces, send it out to committee so that the

committee could go around the province and bring back some

input into it, and give it, if necessary to the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture.

Then, when he was prepared to bring in specific legislation,

he could have brought it into this Legislature and, in an

intelligent manner, the Members of this House could have

exercised the right that they were sent down here to do by the

people of British Columbia.

But instead of that, he brings in this vague Act and, as he

says, specifically vague, to ask us to give him a blank cheque

to spend the British Columbia taxpayers' money. We have not

only an obligation to the farmers in this province; we have a

specific obligation also to the consumers of this province. And

the vagueness of Bill 9 gives me no guarantee that the

interests of either group are going to be well protected.

He's going to take this very important matter out of the

realm of the Legislature. He's going to pass it over to the

civil servants in his committee and let them determine all of

the rules and regulations to this very Act. He's going to go to

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and he's going to

say: Mr. Minister of Finance, I want an as yet unnamed amount

of money to implement this Act.

But the Premier will stand up and say: I don't know what it

will be, but I assure you it's our philosophy and the money

will be there. It'll be in the kitty.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am for this in principle, but you know full well, Mr.

Premier, the type of legislation that you continually put before this House.

You know full well that you don't know how to draw up decent legislation so

that the Members on this side of the House can discuss it in an intelligent

manner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you proved that you can discuss it

intelligently?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there's our Premier, the man who

goes around the province saying that he introduced democracy

into this Legislature. I will prove to the people of this

province before the next election that he has taken democracy

out of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we support this, as I said. (Laughter.) I said

at the very beginning we supported the principle. The Premier

of this province can laugh his fool head off, because

sometimes, you know, he who laughs first…. In closing I just

want to say that we support this with very mixed emotions. But

before closing my remarks, I want to go through just a few of

the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture when he was

introducing this bill. He said it was vague, and he proved he

himself is vague about how he intends to implement it; he

himself does not have the answers.

He said it was enabling legislation. Well so far as I'm

concerned, it enables him to do too much without coming back to

this Legislature. It enables him to spend too much money; it

enables him to bring in too many regula