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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1973

Night Sitting

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 721

Mr. Wallace — 722

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. Chabot — 724

Mr. Smith — 724

Mr. Lewis — 725

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 725

Mr. Williams — 725

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 726

Mr. Chabot — 727

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 728

Mr. Smith — 731

Division on motion to rise and report progress — 732

Mr. Chabot — 732

Mr. Phillips — 733

Mr. Smith — 733

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 734

Mr. Smith — 734

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 734

Mr. Phillips — 735

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 736

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 736

Mr. Wallace — 736

Mr. Chabot — 736

Division on amendment to

section 3 — 737

Mr. Curtis — 737

Mr. Phillips — 738

Division on

section 4 — 738

Report and third reading — 738

Veterinary Laboratories Act (Bill 31 Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 738

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 738

Mr. Williams — 739

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 739

Mr. Morrison — 739

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 739

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 739

Report and third reading — 740

.Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 740

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 740

Mr. Williams — 740

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 740

Mr. Phillips — 741

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 741

Mr. Williams — 741

Report and third reading — 742

[ Page 721 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACI

House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 4.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): This is a little bit of

a different setting. We at last get back to the evening

sessions.

We welcome the fact that the Premier has decided that there

is so much urgent legislation before the House that we have to

have an evening session occasionally to make up for some of the

problems of previous days, and the fact that we had no

legislation before us for the first three weeks of the session

of major importance, except perhaps one bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which bill are you on?

MR. SMITH: Nine, as a matter of fact, the Farm Income

Assurance Act .

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the one that's confused.

MR. SMITH: …and say that during the last discussion that

we had on this bill, it was fairly apparent that the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), while he was asking for

wide, very broad powers, really had nothing to tell us about

how he would implement this legislation or just what he had in

mind with respect to the programmes that would be involved with

the money that would be appropriated from revenue.

The thing that concerns us most is the fact that this type of

legislation is very similar to many other bills that came before the

House. If it was not for the fact that much of the legislation we have

seen in the past year gave the same blank-cheque approval to the

government as this one, we would not be so concerned. But we have seen

other Acts — to name a few: the Revenue

Act , the Energy Act ,

the Land

Commission Act , the Environment

and Land Use Act — all of them leaving

extreme powers in either the hands of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or an appointed commission which would

act

on behalf of the Province of British Columbia.

Surely the Minister must have some idea not only of how he

wants to implement this plan but the amount of money that will

be involved to finance any programme that he has in mind. And

frankly, Mr. Chairman, until we have had some reasonable

explanation from the Minister of Agriculture concerning

section

4, the appropriation of funds for this bill, we're certainly

not prepared to accept what we have heard so far.

There are many areas of the farm economy where assurances of

one form or another may be needed. But it would seem that this

bill was prepared in haste, perhaps as much in haste as Bill

42. And as a result of getting the feedback that we did after

the fact with respect to Bill 42, the Minister has tried to

recover his position by rushing in a Farm

Income Assurance

Act .

There is no indication in this bill of what you consider to

be a farmer. There's no indication in this bill as to how the

plan will be operated or what products or what commodities you

actually have in mind.

The plan in the

interpretation calls for measures to be

implemented and programmes "howsoever described." I'm not sure

that that was intended by the Minister. I would hope that

before this debate closes on this

section he will clarify what

he really means by such a broad statement as that one.

I would hope that the Minister has not been led down the

garden path by the legislative counsel who drafted this bill,

and that in their haste to provide the Minister with a bill to

put into the House at a reasonable time after the legislative

session was first called this fall, they have been involved in

drafting a bill which is not really the intent of the Minister

at all. Either that or we must assume that the Minister does

not know what he really wants and has not been able to give the

legislative counsel enough direction in drafting the

legislation for them really to know what he had in mind. Either

way, it's inexcusable and it makes us very concerned about the

whole programme in the farm economy.

If this is an indication of the concern and the manner in

which you intend to operate the Department of Agriculture, then

all of us in the opposition have great cause for concern and so

does every farmer in the Province of British Columbia.

We need more than a hit-and-miss proposition. We need more

than a wide, all-embracing, motherhood type of legislation

which gives the Minister of Agriculture extreme powers to

appropriate funds, regardless of whether the plan was ever

approved by the Legislative Assembly and the legislators that

sit here or not.

I believe that had the Minister gone to the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture they could have

[ Page 722 ]

told him very quickly the two or three areas at

least that

he should zero in on with this particular type of legislation.

Certainly they spent a great deal of time this year, travelling

throughout the province and listening to farmers and the farm

problems. I think that that committee probably knows more about

the farm problems than the Minister himself. So if he would

just take their advice, if nobody else's, he would have at

least been able, when this bill came before the House, to give

us an indication of the direction and the scope of his

programme. We're entitled to that, Mr. Chairman, as Members of

the Legislature.

We should not be asked to pass blank-cheque legislation,

particularly in the field of farming, because there has never

been a time when the farm organizations collectively could not

tell you many of the problems of the farming economy and do it

in very concise terms.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: Very cynical people across the hall, Mr.

Chairman, people who seem to have no respect for the farming

economy in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, listen to who's talking.

You're holding up this Legislature.

MR. SMITH: I'm not holding up anything, my friend. You tell

the Minister to spell out in

chapter and verse what he intends

under

section 4, and we'll be prepared to go on to another

bill. But until that's done in this House, don't expect us to

sit down and say nothing about this type of legislation.

Because the farmers don't know what's in it; we don't know

what's in it; the Minister doesn't know what he intends to

do.

So don't expect us to sit down and say nothing when we're

talking about the farm economy of the Province of British

Columbia. You should be ashamed — sitting on the cabinet

benches — when you sit there and laugh about the situation of

the economy in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

please address the Chair, and also to confine his remarks to

the

section 4 before us, if you don't mind.

MR. SMITH: Watch your finger on the hot button.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're standing up and saying nothing, not

sitting down and saying nothing.

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

is obviously a little jumpy this evening.

It's a fact that this bill has nothing in it for us to

analyse with respect to the programmes that the Minister

intends to introduce. I'm disappointed because I expected more

from this type of legislation. The only conclusion I can come

to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this is a sop to alleviate

the problems of the farmers and to misdirect their attention

from the things that have happened to them and the way that

their property has been devalued since the introduction of Bill

It's the old tactic of diverting the attention of the

farming economy by bringing into this House

an Act which was

not thought out. Until we see some details of the programme, we

have every right to stand on our feet in this House and protest

what the Minister is doing. All he has to do is to get up on

his feet and tell us what his programme is before he asks us to

approve of this type of legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to add

a few comments on

section 4. I think the Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald), much as I admire him, was stretching our

credulity just a little bit the other day when he said, "Well,

we shouldn't get excited as representatives of the taxpayer.

After all, money being debated in

section 4 could always be

brought back to the House." But he seemed to overlook the very

simple fact that this would be after the money was spent.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the Attorney

General, that that was rather a reflection on the stupidity of

the opposition — that we would accept the kind of comment that

it would be all right to scrutinize the expenditure of the

government after the money had been spent. It's always been my

concept that the role of the opposition was to scrutinize the

proposed estimates. That's what the word "estimate" means: how

much money the government thinks it will require to be spent in

a certain budget, whether it's agriculture or medicine or

education, or any other bill.

Therefore, I just have to comment that I can't accept the

Attorney General's statement that because the expenditure would

finally be debated by this Legislature…it is not good

enough that we should debate the money after it's spent.

I'd also like to say that I can't accept the Minister of

Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich'

s) statement either, the other

day, that he couldn't specify a figure because if it were too

low, there might not be enough in the fund; and if the figure

were too high, there might be a tremendous run on demands for

the fund. I just don't think that that kind of explanation is

really a fair attitude of the government to take on such an

important matter as the large sum of money that we on the

opposition side are supposed to take

[ Page 723 ]

without details

being expressed.

The other thing that really crosses my mind is the number of

times in this House that I've talked about the need for

government to finance nursing home care. So often I get the

answer from the Minister and from others, "Well, we don't know

how much it will cost; it's a very difficult figure to assess.

We just don't know how many patients might need to go to

nursing homes."

It seems to me very strange, Mr. Chairman, that if that

government attitude prevails toward the nursing homes, it's

certainly absent from this bill regarding agriculture; the

sky's the limit on this bill. No statement whatever as to how

low or how high the cost might be, But apparently the sick

people of this province who need nursing home care are a

different problem. We don't know how much that's going to cost.

And I agree that we don't know what it's going to cost. But why

come in with a bill like this in farming and tell us to give

you a blank cheque?

Apparently that kind of legislation cannot be brought in for

sick people in this province. I think that this is really not

good enough, that the government should ask in such vague,

general terms for approval of the opposition towards the

expenditure of potentially very large sums of money without any

guideline or detail whatever.

It's becoming repetitious, Mr. Chairman, and if you're

getting ready to rule me out of order, that's fine. But I can

simply say that, in the opinion of this party in the House, it

cannot be said too often that the first responsibility of a

Member of this Legislature is to scrutinize very carefully the

expenditure of taxpayers' money — in advance of it being

spent.

For that reason I have to reiterate our strong opposition to

section 4.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the Member

suggests that the government thinks that the opposition is

stupid. Far be it from me to suggest that that be the case. But

I am surprised to hear the Member suggest that his

interpretation of estimates is a debate of funds after they're

spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then, Mr. Member, what we are telling you,

and what the Attorney General told you, is that we're passing — we hope

to pass; we hope to get the support to pass the bill … and we note with

interest that the official opposition

voted for the bill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't have it both ways. It's a

very good political device to say, "Well,

we voted for it in principle" — but then not

have any

principle by attacking it at opposition. At least the Liberal

Party has said that they're not going to vote for it because it

is, in their frame of reference, too vague; it doesn't have the

detail. And they're principled enough in saying that they won't

accept it on that basis.

But to have the official opposition vote for it in principle

and then attempt to say, "We told the farmers we've endorsed

the programme"…but when they came down to committee they

really didn't't endorse the programme at all.

What are you saying to us? You are saying to us in committee

stage that you're against this bill because there's not enough

detail. But you were for it, even though there isn't enough

detail, in second reading. Now how inconsistent can you get? If

you take a position, at least stick by it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Order, order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I say that this

section has got as much

detail as it had when you voted in second reading. When the estimates

come in you can certainly stand up, as the Attorney General said, and

attack the spending estimates. Without this bill we won't be able to

initiate the programmes that I thought everybody in British Columbia

wanted.

Section 4 enables the Minister to initiate new programmes.

And when those funds are available and are spent in new

programmes, the accountability is here in the House. We'll come

back and we'll ask you to scrutinize those accounts and support

or criticize the Minister for his actions. I just don't

understand; I just don't understand — unless you're simply

playing politics, which would be a terrible accusation to make

against the party with a record like yours.

Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand the official

opposition's position. I ask the House to get on and endorse

this legislation or vote against it, as you see fit. But at

least accept the idea….

MR. CHABOT: Ram it through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ram it through? My friend we couldn't ram

anything past you, especially in a leadership race, when every

issue becomes a major mountain for you to climb over.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, Mr. Chairman, I accept their calls

for order because they are great observers of order themselves

in a debate in the committee stage.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is asking

your support or your opposition to a very simple section. With

all of the clichés that you can

[ Page 724 ]

drag out, the speeches have now been reduced to

certain

categories on this section: under the "V" for "vague,"

under the "S" for "state socialism," under the "S" for

"sweeping powers." I think that we can get a whole manual

developed for this

section that will be available for other

sections as we go along.

Perhaps then they could just hold up cards and let us know

what number they are referring to.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says, relative to

section 4, that he needs this

section to initiate new

programmes. He's suggesting that with a specified amount under

section 4 it would not be possible to initiate new programmes.

What a bunch of nonsense! What a bunch of political

nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, there he goes….

MR. CHABOT: We listened to the Attorney General saying, "Oh,

we'll account for every penny; oh, every penny will be

accounted for." What's wrong with calling for the pennies after

you've indicated what kind of dollars you need for this

programme? This is the type of programme where the government

is saying "trust us." We've heard that statement before from

that government. The people out there know that they can't

trust them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it.

MR. CHABOT: You can't trust them, Mr. Chairman. We want to

know just what kind of programmes that the Minister looks

forward to introducing in this open-ended section.

I'm sure that the Minister has failed, on numerous

occasions, to get up and clarify his position as to why he

needs an open-ended fund on

section 4. The Minister has given

us nothing but an indication that he's wallowing in a field of

uncertainty.

I'm surprised, really, that those government supporters in

the backbenches, those who come from rural parts of the

province and those who come from the agricultural parts of this

province, have remained so strangely silent in debate on this

section 4. You know, it indicates to me very clearly that they

have no concern for the respect and dignity of this parliament,

where things should be debated in actual detail.

No, Mr. Chairman, I've never seen a debate like this, when

we're discussing the matter that the government is given an

open-ended fund to spend as they please, for agricultural

purposes, for political purposes or for any other purposes,

where the backbench has remained so silent. I'd hoped that the

backbench would get up and discuss this matter which is of

extreme importance to the respect of parliament.

I would hope that the Minister, in his last opportunity before we

have a vote, or before his backbench gets up and turns on him for his

lack of being specific, would get up and give us some kind of

programme, some kind of idea of just what kind of dollars he's talking

about.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it would have been a very easy

thing indeed for the Minister of Agriculture to get on his feet

this evening and give us some indication of what he really

intends with this programme. It's fairly obvious that neither

the Minister nor the government Members in this House who

represent agricultural ridings in the province have anything to

say. Nothing to say about this bill.

It would have been a good plan, I think, for the Minister to

indicate to the House the amount of money that he felt was

necessary for the plan, even if he was a little under or over

on his original estimate. Certainly he could have included a

ballpark figure within the bill and given to us an indication

of what his plans were.

It would have been no great problem, Mr. Chairman, for the

Minister to bring an amendment before this Legislative Assembly

at the next session of the Legislature, which will probably be

in January. It would probably come before this House before any

plan was ever implemented or one dollar had to be paid out.

So what is the problem, Mr. Minister? Why are you stalling

and staying in the weeds on this plan? Because the money that

will be required will not be required in any great amounts for

the next few months. If the amount set up by statute in this

particular bill is insufficient, by the time we next meet in

this assembly you could certainly propose an amendment.

It's your responsibility as Minister to indicate to the

House, to your own Members at least if you don't want to say

anything to the opposition, what you have in mind. Have you got

them all gagged? Are they not as concerned about the farming

community as the other Members of this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously you're the one that's not

concerned.

MR. SMITH: Either that or you have at some stage, or at some

caucus meeting, indicated to them far more than you're prepared

to indicate to the opposition Members of this House. I don't

think that we should be asked to pass this particular

section

of the bill until you give us an indication of what you have in

mind.

Certainly after the discussion that has taken place on this

particular

section in previous sittings of this Legislature it

should have got to you I think, really, that there was a

principle here and a concept that the opposition were not

prepared to accept, that even

[ Page 725 ]

some of your own Members in your backbench may have

some

misgivings about. You could very simply have indicated in this

section a specific number of dollars with the indication to the

House that if this was not sufficient you would be coming back

before us at the end of March — or at least it would take

effect then, but in the next session of the Legislature — to

ask for an increase in funds, to finance the programmes that

you have in mind.

I ask just once again, without trying to be repetitious, Mr.

Chairman: what are your programmes and where do you think the

problem is at this particular time with respect to providing

assurances or income to the farming community?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Seeing how the Hon. Members of the

opposition are wanting some remarks from the backbench, I

thought I should stand up and give them some. (Laughter.)

You know, we're certainly entering a new era in this

province when the opposition has to worry about any government

spending too much money on farming. (Laughter.) This has never

happened before in British Columbia and it's never happened

before in Canada.

I'll tell you one thing, that while that party was in power

they were a disgrace to the farming community.

It just so happens that I'm a farmer and I'm very much

affected by this legislation. I also live in a riding that's

probably 70 per cent oriented toward agriculture and I haven't

had one complaint from that riding in regards to this

legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You asked for it!

MR. LEWIS: When we get around to where we worry about the

opposition spending some money on farmers, possibly the

election will turn around and you'll get some votes in another

time. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're winding up the debate.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): No, I've no

intention of winding it up. The last speaker spoke as a farmer.

I wonder whether or not the Members of the opposition who are

so concerned about us spending too much money on farmers have

heard anything from the farmers in their constituencies. Is

there any concern from the farming community, or are they

speaking simply as Members of the opposition?

There was a question raised by the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) when he spoke in this debate yesterday, I believe it was.

He asked whether we had any programmes or plans. I tried to make it

perfectly clear during discussion of this bill that there will not be

any programme, there will not be any specific plans until we have an

opportunity to discuss a particular plan with the commodity group

involved. We're in no position to invite any discussions like that as

long as we're discussing this legislation in this session of the

Legislature. Only after the bill has been passed will we feel free and

only then will the commodity groups feel that there's any point in

talking to the government about any kind of a farm income stabilization

plan.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm trying to listen to some of these

comments in case they add anything which they have not been

able to contribute to the debate so far. I thought that when

they're sitting down they might speak with more sense than when

they're standing, but it doesn't appear obvious so far.

In any case, we've had preliminary requests from two groups:

from representatives of the fruit growers and from the dairy

industry. Staff have worked on cost-of-production figures that

will assist us in the development of plans for these two

particular commodity groups so far. But in both cases they're

going slow and we're going slow until we have the legislative

authority to discuss this with them.

As far as the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

asking for clarification of

section 4, I thought it was

perfectly obvious that what we're saying in

section 4 is that

this is where the Lieutenant-Governor instructs the Minister of

Finance where he is to get the money to provide for the fund

that is provided for in

section 2(a), and that's what

section 4

does.

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

every time we have a speech from the Minister, he increases the

concern that I have about the wisdom of voting for any

section

of this legislation.

The Minister has just given us the most complete drivel that

I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown give to this

assembly. To suggest that he and officials of his department

cannot meet with commodity groups to discuss the possibility of

some income assurance or stabilization plan without the passage

of this legislation is just nonsense. Complete, utter

nonsense.

The Minister has said that he is now having discussions with

two commodity groups and he hopes to be able to work out a

plan. Mr. Chairman, when the Minister has completed those

discussions and his officials have devised a commodity income

stabilization or assurance plan, that's when he should be

bringing the bill before the House. Then we will know of a

specific plan that we are talking about and we will have some

idea of the amount of money that

[ Page 726 ]

the people of this province will be obliged to pay

in order

to make that plan work.

The Minister said yesterday, and he said it again a few

moments ago, that all this

section 4 is designed to do is to

say where the money's coming from. Mr. Chairman, there's never

been any doubt where the money is coming from. The money is

coming from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I don't care how long we must repeat it; we can never be

criticized for discussing fiscal wisdom in this House. And the

Minister has not done so in any of his remarks. As a matter of

fact, when he spoke yesterday he agreed with the position that

we are presently taking. He said that the trouble with

section

4 is that he didn't want to put in an amount which was too

small, because that might disturb the commodity groups. In

other words, having promised the farm community an income

assurance plan, he didn't want to put in a sum of money which

was a responsible amount because the farming community might

believe it was being cheated. And that wouldn't be politic, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: That's right; that's the key.

MR. WILLIAMS: He went on to say, however, that he didn't

want to make the amount too large because, and I'm quoting the

Minister's words, "it would give the impression to the

community totally that we were going too far with this

programme."

That's why we're opposing

section 4. It doesn't give any

amount at all, so "too far" is limitless under

section 4.

Doesn't the Minister understand that? If he doesn't want to put

in too large a sum because it would be going "too far,"

what does he think he's showing to the community totally when

he puts no limits on expenditure at all? As far as the horizon;

as far as the moon. That's what he's offering to the community

totally with

section 4.

The Minister said some other things. He promised that he

would be coming back to this House with details of a programme.

He said he hoped that there would be an opportunity to discuss

programmes in this House. That's why we have opposed the bill

every section. There's nothing in Bill 9,

section 4, or any of

the other sections, which in any way obliges that Minister to

come back to this House and lay before us a programme for

examination, or to allow us to question any programme which he

may institute. There is no obligation on him to come back

before this House and let us ever again debate whether the

amount of money that he is spending on those programmes is too

low or too high.

He and the cabinet in Bill 9 can run the whole show. He doesn't even

make a commitment to this House. In his remarks yesterday he said he

hoped he would be able to do it. Mr. Chairman, that means that he will

only do it if the rest of his cabinet colleagues permit him.

If the Minister is sincere in his suggestion that he will

come back before this House and allow us to examine the

programmes that he and his department devised for commodity

groups, if he is serious that he will permit us to examine the

amounts of money which will support those programmes, then let

him adjourn this committee and let him bring back amendments to

Bill 9 which will provide specifically that he must bring any

particular commodity income assurance programme accepted by the

Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council back before this House for

report and examination and discussion. Let him provide in this

section 4 that the only moneys that may be provided through the

Minister of Finance in this fiscal year will be those made

available by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that any

moneys available in a subsequent fiscal year, to support any

programmes which are approved by this House, are moneys which

are voted by

an Act of this Legislature.

That's how we get responsibility. The Minister well knows,

when he examines the legislation dealing with the expenditure

of funds in this area, that in other parliaments there are

limits and those limits may not be exceeded except by

an Act of

that parliament; and yet he will not give us that opportunity

in British Columbia. And I ask why.

The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) spoke a moment ago

as a farmer, and said we have never spent enough money on

farmers in this province. I agree with him. But what assurance

does he have that we're going to do it in this bill? What

assurance does he have that, as a commodity producer, he or any

of his colleagues in that same commodity group are ever going

to have an opportunity to question the programme that that

Minister establishes, either through his abilities to debate in

this House or through the abilities of any other Member to

debate in this House?

The Minister can provide the safeguards that we're asking

for without hampering his opportunity to deal with each

commodity group, as and when he wishes. He's under no deadline.

But he can give us the assurances in this legislation by

introducing the appropriate amendments which will make sure

that it does come back to this House for those specific items

of approval.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's quite an experience to sit and listen to the

Members of the opposition, all parties, debate this particular

section

of this particular bill. It's obvious when we listen to the official

opposition that they forget what they said this afternoon, when I heard

Members cry crocodile tears about a certain situation…

[ Page 727 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Don't lose your

cool.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …a certain situation that has

developed with regard to agriculture and vis-à-vis the

transportation of food for the agriculture industry. I ask you

to put a cash value on that situation, right now, which is part

of the demand of this bill to provide farm income assurance.

You can't do it. There's no way you could estimate what that

will be. But there you were, wailing and weeping and gnashing

your teeth, a sham show.

Here's the opportunity of guaranteeing to the people you

were talking about this afternoon that they will have an income

assurance to offset and overcome any damage that might be done

through the effect or situation that develops in any other

section of the Province of British Columbia. But there you are

this evening opposing the kind of legislation that would assure

these people of the kind of security that you were talking

about this afternoon. So it's obvious you don't mean what you

said this afternoon, or you don't mean what you said tonight,

one or the other. You can make your choice.

The Liberals. What did they say? They said, "We can't trust

the Minister to do this or do that. Why isn't it in the

legislation? It has to be in the legislation before you can put

it in your estimates next year within a few months to bring it

into this House." But even more, I ask the Liberals to cast

their minds back three years ago when I stood, about there

somewhere, and talked about the measure of the insanity of our

society because the federal Liberal government were paying

farmers $7 an acre not to raise wheat. Was there any estimate

of how much that programme was going to cost, and was it by

legislation?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Yes, $100 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: $100 million by legislation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Spelled out in the legislation. You can go to

the library and look at it….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How much did it cost? How close was that

$100 million? You don't know, No, you don't know and you don't

care, because it was an insane programme and that's the whole

Liberal attitude toward agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: How much wheat did we lose?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and how much wheat did we lose? How

much foodstuffs did Canada lose because of that insane Liberal

programme?

But what concerns me is this feeling in this House tonight from the

opposition that, as I look at these people across the way, every one of

them reflecting the chamber of commerce, small-businessman attitude,

they don't care about farmers. They are prepared to do anything for the

business people who want a penurious rationing of help to the farmers

of this province.

I suggest to you that if we believe and mean what we said

about the necessity of maintaining agriculture in the Province

of British Columbia, you've got to abandon that blindness

attitude that you have toward agriculture. You've got to stand

up and be counted. You are either for agriculture in this

province or you're against agriculture in this province; and

you vote for this or you vote against it.

If you are for it, you talk for it; if you are against it,

you talk against it. Stand up and be counted. Say what you mean

and mean what you say.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we are for the right and respect

and dignity of parliament.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He suggests that they should ride roughshod over

parliament in this historical function: the watchdog of the

public purse. You have no respect whatsoever for parliament.

You've displayed that very clearly with your harangue here

tonight.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has indicated very clearly that

they have no plan. He suggested that they must pass the

legislation, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) brought to his attention that it was not necessary.

Quite obviously it's not necessary; they are just starting to

meet with commodity groups. In other words, there is no great

rush to have this open-ended fund as is given in

section 4.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Against the farmers. It's all right.

MR. CHABOT: Now they talk about the accounting of the

expenditures. For the kind of dollars that are designated in

section 4 we'll never hear any estimates. It will be spent by

cabinet decree. That's how it will be spent. There will never

be an accounting in this House where a Member will have an

opportunity to question the Minister in the estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was in your day.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting that it's going to be in the

estimates? This is not going to be in the

[ Page 728 ]

estimates. They will be spent willy-nilly in any

way that

the Minister or the cabinet feels it will be politically

beneficial for that government. That's how it will be spent.

Cheap politics. Cheap politics with the taxpayers' money on an

open-ended expense account.

No, I want to say that when that government over there

brings in this open-ended legislation, it is quite obvious that

they have no respect for the tradition of parliament. They are

prepared to abuse the role of parliament in bringing in these

open-ended pieces of legislation.

I'll say this right now: if the government at this time — and I am

sure that this is a reasonable suggestion that I'll

put forward — that if the government will accept an amendment

which I consider adequate, a simple amendment, limiting the

expenditures to $10 million, we will support the legislation. I

am sure that that is adequate.

In view of the fact that the Minister has no programme

whatsoever…he is just in the process of meeting, he says,

or will be meeting after the legislation has been given royal

assent. If they will put an amendment here of $10 million,

which, he's got to agree, is sufficient, between now and the

next time we meet to vote additional dollars…at which time

he will have an opportunity to justify the expenditures up to

$10 million. We will support

section 4 if a limit of $10

million is put in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate this

evening, the Premier gave us credit for at least being

consistent with our principles and I thank him for that. I

would go on into where he went on further and said that this

seems to be a repetitive debate, that it seems to be that you

can pull out a number or a letter and there is the subject.

All I would like to mention to him is that this is one of

the few debates, perhaps, which narrow down on fairly clear

issues — fairly clear issues of principles, principles embodied

section 4, as well, of course, as in

section 2.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, all we are asking

in this debate is that the principles we are talking about, the

principles affecting these sections and the stand that we have

taken, be at least understood by the government so that they

know what they are doing.

It is easy to make fun of our criticisms of vague and

sweeping power. It's easy to make fun of the criticisms of the

unlimited amounts of money. But, really and truly, Mr.

Chairman, these are points which are critical, we feel, to the

passage of

section 4 — of course,

section 4 being the last

section to the passage of the legislation as a whole.

Certainly it is easy to say that under the "V" you find "vagueness."

Well, that unfortunately is the type of thing which should be an

absolute bar to this legislation being passed in the Legislature. If

that hasn't been understood, we have to repeat it. The necessity of

repeating is, as I said, because this is a relatively clear and an

extremely important question. How can we be asked to vote for a

section

which simply grants unlimited power to the Minister for plans that he

has not determined and for plans that he has yet to discuss with the

commodity groups.

We have had the statement by the Minister of Agriculture

that he cannot begin to discuss these commodity group plans

until he has this legislation. Well, anyone who has spent any

time in any Legislature knows that to be the most patent and

fallacious nonsense that any Minister of this government or any

other has put forward. Obviously the government can't discuss

programmes, future programmes, with interested parties.

Is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. Williams) getting up in the Legislature to try to defend

himself on some patently absurd grounds? No, he goes out and

discusses with other people, perhaps not adequately — we'll

criticize him for that — but he does discuss stumpage, for

example, with the industry. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) makes a botch of it, but at least he goes to

the municipalities and discusses with them the question of how

much these new buses are going to cost. The Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has also made an effort to, at least,

discuss prior to legislation coming forward.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says that he hasn't made a

botch yet. Well, we are all waiting for him to fail in his

efforts. I'm not here tonight to criticize the Minister. But

the principle is that at least some Ministers have paid lip

service to the principle of discussion. This makes absolute

nonsense of the Minister of Agriculture's statement that this

bill is essential before he could possibly discuss with the

commodity groups what is going on.

If we are fed specious nonsense like that at this stage in

the debate, it's no wonder that we must rise to our feet and be

critical. The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) got up and, you know, it was really sad for me.

When I was a younger person, when I was a student in this

province, I used to come down to this Legislature. I admired

the man. He sat in the opposition. He'd get smashed by our

former Premier on the nose time after time. He would fall down

and get up again and fight.

He was a man who consistently fought for principle. Now he is

fighting for principle so distorted that I wonder whether it's the same

man at all. He looks like a ghost of his previous self.

[ Page 729 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you would like me to quote a few

statements of the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications

which I have in front of me — what he said when he was an

opposition Member.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do speak up. Your pip-squeak voice was

referred to earlier….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

address the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't hear the squeaking from the Hon.

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) very clearly.

In previous years, the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) denounced absolute

discretion in moneys.

He was called to order on page 899 of Hansard . "Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I was under the impression I was speaking about the

absolute discretion of the Minister and the money. It is the

subject in the Act and regulations. The Minister may grant out

of money appropriated to that person by the Legislature, social

assistance and amounts…" and so on and so on. I am quoting

him. "He has absolute discretion and he is the Minister and

this is the Act."

Curiously, Mr. Chairman, he was just called up by the

Speaker for his references to his predecessor's use of a rented

jet. Now, of course, he has two of his own and I guess he is

not so interested in departing from debates in that manner.

That was the Minister of Transport and Communications just

less than two years ago: a man who stood for the principle and

argued eloquently for the principle of having this Legislature

grant restricted, clear amounts of money for specific purposes

and having Ministers required by legislation to grant such

money out — not by discretion, but by legislation. Now he has

switched around 180 degrees. He flies his own aircraft just

like his predecessor. He ignores these principles that he

raised at this time.

All I can say when I see a man who previously, as I said,

was a man that I think most people in the province of all

political persuasions admired, is that the Hon. Minister is

just simply a pale shadow of his former self. It is

disappointing in the extreme.

He makes remarks about the Lower Inventories For Tomorrow programme,

a clear programme, but totally fails to mention the purpose of the

programme, which was to free up the storage facilities on the prairies

— the elevators, of course, which were clogged with wheat and have been

for three years. No mention of the purpose of the programme in his

facetious remarks.

I would like to remind him of what was said in tonight's

paper in Victoria here by a former CCF Member of Parliament, a

man who ran for NDP nomination three years ago, Mr. Douglas

Fisher. He was talking about this great group in Ottawa, the

NDP, who keep this terrible government in power, the government

that you seem to dislike so much, Mr. Minister. And Mr.

Premier, whenever he can think of nothing else to say, follows

his predecessor and waxes wrath about it. The NDP group in

Ottawa: what does he say?

"Members with conspicuous leadership ambitions, Ed

Broadbent, John Harney, Terry Grier, Bill Knight, even Lorne

Nystrom and Doug Rowland, were not ready to upset the

parliamentary boat. A few of the older salts in the caucus have

become comfortable in dealing with the government. A few

Members of the caucus may have been influenced by the fact that

if they last as MPs until June, they would become eligible for

a minimum lifetime pension of $390 a month."

What corruption! The NDP party here, of course, oh, they're

all against the Ottawa government. They also realize it's the

NDP which keeps the government they dislike so much in power.

And, as suggested by Douglas Fisher, one of the reasons

apparently is because they want to hold on long enough for

their pensions. That, I say, is corruption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine

his remarks to

section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are certainly no

farther afield than those of the Hon. Minister of

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

It goes on, and this is, as I said, an NDP Member, a former

Member of Parliament, as he says: "At the same time word spread

in the party that eight or 10 caucus members were actively

talking formal coalition with the government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, it's unpleasant but it's

relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, of course when the Premier

or the Hon. Minister of Communications get off on anything

affecting the federal….

[ Page 730 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, those remarks are not

relevant to

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In order to preserve an

atmosphere of goodwill in this debate, I would ask the Hon.

Members to try to keep their remarks strictly relevant to

section 4. That applies to both sides of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the truth certainly

hurts and the Minister is reacting, I think, very obviously in

this regard. The fact is…. You're on your feet — you'd like

to say something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been talking about

section 4. 1

noticed the Minister was quick to get on his feet when the

Premier gets off the subject or when the Minister of

Communications gets off the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

address the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a schoolboy. Get back to grade 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At least I haven't graduated to the point

of corruption that you have, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take that back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you were going to stay in this House….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I demand you withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't you ever challenge my

integrity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll challenge your integrity any time

you come in this House and make remarks as you have done

tonight.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not challenging your integrity; I'm

challenging your intelligence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be

seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if that offends the

Minister, I will withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister be seated? I would ask

the Hon. Second Member for Victoria to withdraw his

statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the Minister

and yourself, I will withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I've withdrawn those

remarks at the request of the Hon. Member. I will ask him only

to examine the record of this Legislature when he talked

himself, when referring to the actions of the previous

government, about unlimited discretion over monetary matters by

the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

(Mr. Gaglardi).

If the Minister is offended by a reference to his previous

remarks, let him consider that. But I say that he's changed his

views. His attitude is different. And the reference I feel, the

reference I made to the NDP, is of course to the party which

supports the government which he thinks is so terrible, which

he consistently parades before this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've been very lenient from the

Chair in this debate, but I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to

section 4 and to address his remarks to

the Chair. I would request the other Members not to interrupt

him while he finishes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the reason, perhaps, that

this debate gets heated is that these are questions of very

important principle. I apologize to the Hon. Member; I

genuinely feel that I exceeded the limits of good taste in my

remark.

But the reason we get heated on this debate is there are

critical issues of real importance in

section 4, just as there

are in

section 2 and other sections. If there is anything that

a Legislature should do it is to grant moneys to the Crown

grudgingly and grant powers to the Crown grudgingly, because in

every other example in history where this has been done in a

careless and a slipshod fashion we have found, Mr. Chairman, as

the Hon. Premier mentioned last year, in quoting McRuer, the

Chief Justice of Ontario, where he said that "unnecessary power

conferred on public authorities corrupts and destroys

democratic institutions and gives life to all forms of tyranny,

some petty and some extreme."

[ Page 731 ]

Mr. Chairman, this debate may get heated, but it's because

we're discussing issues of this nature and it's for just that

reason that the debate in March of 1972 was heated.

We have here legislation which in its scope is totally

unfettered with respect to moneys in

section 4. We have here

legislation on which we, the people's representatives, have no

way of knowing what the Minister will do.

We even heard the Premier, before an election, say that he

wouldn't become Minister of Finance. Why is it not possible for

the Minister of Agriculture to change his mind about commodity

groups, as he may well do once this legislation is passed?

We've had the changes of mind before, and the only way we can

get away from that is to put down in black and white in the

legislation, where all Members can debate, what actually is

going to take place.

That is the only way the farmers of my hon. friend from

Shushwap (Mr. Lewis) can find what is in the legislation. They

don't know now. They don't know what we are approving in this

Legislature. They have no idea how it can affect them. They

have no idea whether $5 is involved or $5 million or $50

million. They just don't know. There's no way that they can

stand up and say they're so happy because they don't know what

they're happy about. They just don't know the programme.

Unless we get the programmes put forward in this way, I just

cannot see how this Legislature or any other Legislature can

maintain the principle that we are the servants to the Crown

and that we here grant moneys to the Crown. I realize that

words I used previously were perhaps excessive, but to do

otherwise completely demeans the whole meaning and purpose of a

Legislature and demeans the meaning and purpose of our role in

this Legislature.

MR. SMITH: The debate at times this evening has become quite

heated. I think one of the reasons why it has done so is

because of the fact that when we speak about the farmers and

their economy all of us must admit that we're a little

frustrated in trying to find the solutions to the problems. But

that does not excuse the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) or the Members of his department or anyone else

engaged in the field of agriculture from trying to come up with

a solution.

Certainly the contemplated funds that would be approved

under

section 4 of this particular Act will be required for any

farm income assistance plan. But farmers generally are a very

proud lot and they don't ask for handouts. As a matter of fact,

if they were as much inclined to become easily provoked as the

members of labour unions generally, they would have taken out

their wrath upon the people of the province who are non-farmers

many, many years ago.

The simple fact of the farming economy is this: that for all the

hours that he puts into his chosen profession, the result and the

return for too many of them for too many years in a row is less than a

subsistence income.

You know the Minister of Transport and Communications who

has just left the floor here suggested that we have no respect

for farmers. That's an unfortunate remark, Mr. Chairman,

because I believe that's cheap political claptrap. Many people

have respect for farmers, including every Member of this

assembly, and I would hope that includes the Minister of

Transport and Communications in this House.

On the other hand, you have to analyse what the Minister is

really asking for in

section 4. What he has really done is take

a problem which he admits is a problem — the uneconomic level

of farm income to certain classes of farmers and to certain

people — and provide a bill which he hopes will be useful in

providing a more adequate income. But the reason that the

Minister does not wish to state an amount or place a dollar

figure on that bill is because of the fact that it's a

political game.

If the amount mentioned is too small, then he knows that all

the farmers in the province will be angry. And if by chance the

amount of the fund is too large in the minds of some people,

then he's afraid that he'll offend the urban voters in the

Province of British Columbia.

The suggestion that was made by the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) was a good suggestion. It was that the

Minister of Agriculture could very well attach an upper dollar

limit to the amount of funds that he would ask for under

section 4 of this bill at this particular time. The suggestion

was $10 million, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that the urban

dwellers would argue with that, and I'm sure that the farmers

would know that they were dealing with a Minister who was

prepared to look at their problem, to analyse it, to work with

them in good faith.

The fact that that amount of money might have to be

increased is something that the Legislative Assembly would deal

with at that particular time. But the thing that disturbs me

most, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the Minister himself must

know that if a figure of $10,000 was appropriated by this

particular

section of this bill….

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

Ten thousand — that's not very much.

MR. SMITH: If I said $10,000 I stand corrected. Ten million.

If the figure of $10 million was appropriated by this bill it

is certainly adequate to get the programme off the ground, and

there is no way that that amount of funds would be required

before

[ Page 732 ]

we next sit in this Legislative Assembly. We're at

the end

of the year and the only way that anyone, including the members

and the staff of his own department, will be able to determine

the amount of money that is required is by asking farmers to

file with the department a statement of the income that they

received during the present year.

If he wants to use fiscal year — fine. This would mean that

in all likelihood very few dollars would be expended before

next January or February, which gets us into the next sitting

of the Legislature, and we would have fulfilled our

responsibility as elected Members of this Legislative Assembly

with respect to the allocation of funds.

The matter of dealing with the budget is one thing and the

matter of dealing with legislation of this sort is something

quite different, particularly where we do not know at this time

what the Minister has in mind.

It is an historical right, Mr. Chairman, of the elected

Members of any Legislative Assembly to deal with funds, to

approve the allocation of funds, be they for the budget or for

specific purposes, and debate the particular matter that is in

front of them on a detailed basis as provided by the bills that

are before us and by the statements of the Minister who wishes

funds to be provided.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to page 62 of

May . This is the 18th edition,

if you wish to get a copy and

follow me, Mr. Chairman, because I'm going to invite you to

rule on this. I would refer to page 62 of the 18th edition of

May as to the principal powers

of the Commons.

"The dominant influence enjoyed by the House of

Commons

within parliament may be ascribed principally to its statutes

as an elected assembly, whose Members serve as the chosen

representatives of the people. As such, the House of Commons

possesses the most important powers vested in any branch of the

Legislature: the right of imposing taxes upon the people…"

and I repeat, "the right of imposing taxes upon the people and

of voting money for the public service. The exercise of this

right ensures the annual meeting of parliament for redress of

grievances and it may also be said to give the Commons the

chief authority in the state."

That. Is why we request that the Minister attach to

section

4 of this bill the upper dollar figure he has in mind for this

particular plan. We're not asking a great deal. I would ask

you, Sir, to rule on whether that is not the principal

objective and the principal responsibility of elected Members

in this Legislative Assembly?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point on which I can rule unless

there is a point of order raised. Otherwise it would have to be

directed to the House on a matter of principle.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I make that particular request on a

point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this cannot be done in committee.

If you wish this to be done then you must move that the

Committee rise and report progress, and then raise the matter

in the House or at the time that we reconvene.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 32

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

MR. CHABOT: On

section 4, and I'm not going to repeat

myself, I strongly believe that there should be a limit on the

amount of dollars that are allocated under this section. I

therefore move the following amendment: that

section 4 be

amended by adding a subsection 2 and renumbering. Accordingly,

in 2, notwithstanding subsection 1, no amount authorized under

subsection 1 shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of $10

million unless and until further appropriations in excess of

that amount are approved by the Legislative Assembly.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You're all mixed up. I'm not suggesting that

money be spent; I'm putting a limit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll declare the amendment in order. We are

now speaking to the amendment.

[ Page 733 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm probably more than anybody

else in this Legislature in favour of the principle of this

particular bill. However, I realize that power corrupts and

absolute power corrupts absolutely. Having a great deal of

respect for the Minister of Agriculture, I want to relieve him

of the responsibility that he is taking unto himself in this

particular section. The Minister warned me the other day during

the debate on this particular section….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am, certainly. The amendment is to the

section — $10 million. The Minister stood in his place and he

said, "I'll debate with the farmers in your riding whether you

supported this particular

section or not." You know, the thing,

Mr. Chairman, and I mean this in all sincerity, is that what

the Minister could do until we put a limit on this, under this

amendment, is that the Minister could go into my riding and he

could say to the farmers in my riding or the farmers in the

chairman of agricultural committee's (Mr. G.H. Anderson'

s) riding, or he could say in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr.

Lewis'

s) riding, "I have unlimited power to spend the

province's money in your particular riding on any project that

you want."

You'd better believe it. Unless you accept this amendment

this is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture could do.

Today he sends out a memo that says that we're going to put in

the Shuswap riding a chicken-plucking plant. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I don't want to invite any conflict of

interest. This is the type of thing this Minister of

Agriculture can do if we give him the powers that are given to

him — unlimited under

section 4. He could go into my riding

under this power unlimited and say to the farmers in my riding,

"You come with me, you vote for me, you vote for the NDP

candidate that we're going to put up in the next election; and

I want to tell you farmers….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Foulkes man is a little uptight

tonight.

He could say to the farmers in my riding, "Listen, we passed

a bill in the Legislature that gives me unlimited money. I've

got a siphon hose right into that well, that money well, that

the old Social Credit Party left for me, and if you really

support our candidate I'll give a little suck on that siphon

hose and I'll get a lot of money into your riding."

This is exactly what could happen. That's why I say that we

have to put a limit on this thing. If the Minister doesn't

accept this limit, we're returning to the pre-1952

order-in-council deal — back to taking the expenditures in this

province away from the Legislature. If the Premier and Minister

of Finance is conscientious in what he is trying to do in this

province, he will stand up and he will support this

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, all we want to do in this Legislature is to be

fair. I want to tell you and I want to tell all the people in

the galleries tonight and all the people of British Columbia,

that a meeting of cabinet can expend unlimited funds on this

particular bill.

I also want to ask you: do you know what a meeting of

cabinet is? A meeting of cabinet can be a meeting of one. It

can be a meeting of the Minister of Agriculture. Power

corrupts, and the crushing majority that this government has,

the overwhelming majority that this government has, is their

weakness. I regret to see that. I really regret to see

that.

I regret to see them trying to pass legislation here at this

late hour, trying to force on the people of British Columbia

legislation without meaning, giving them corrupt power. I know

the Minister of Finance is a conscientious man and I'm sure

he's going to support this amendment.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would the Chairman show the Hon. Premier the

amendment in case he would like to see it and see that it's

signed? I know what the amendment's about. The ruling was

already given, Mr. Premier; where have you been?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. SMITH: That has to take the cake, Mr. Chairman. We're

debating an amendment which has been ruled upon, it's been

accepted and now the Premier comes along 15 minutes later and

says, "Has anyone ruled on this amendment?" Where has he been

when we're talking about the appropriation of funds under this

particular

section of the Act? Where has he been?

All we're suggesting by this amendment — and I'll be very

brief, Mr. Chairman — is this: that the amount of money

suggested, namely $10 million, is certainly adequate to finance

any programme that will come into effect that will be required

between now and the next time this Legislative Assembly sits.

As a matter of fact, it may be far beyond the next sitting of

the Legislature before you have to ask for any particular

amendments to this particular

[ Page 734 ]

sub amendment.

We think it's fair. The farmers of British Columbia will

think it's fair; the urban population of British Columbia will

think it's fair — and that will protect your image in those

areas, Mr. Minister. Why won't you accept it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the government is not

prepared to accept this amendment for reasons that I made clear

in second reading; at least, I thought I did. I said then that

the provincial government is negotiating and hopes to continue

negotiating with the federal government with respect to this

income assurance plan, and that it might very well include a

funding arrangement.

Representatives of my department have met with federal

officials in Ottawa since my visit to Ottawa and will be

meeting again next week in the event that there is a

requirement for a funding plan it might be necessary to provide

something more than $10 million.

I don't know, I made that clear in second reading. With that

in mind, and with in mind that the purpose of this is to

protect farm income by an assurance plan, the government is not

prepared to accept that amendment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much the statements

of the Minister, because if there's anything that would be

beneficial in dealing with Ottawa, it would be the fact that

you had in legislative form a set amount of dollars that you

were prepared to expend, if necessary, upon the implementation

of this particular plan.

You could also go to Ottawa with the assurance that in the

legislation that had been passed, if the amount of money that

we had set out in this assembly was not sufficient, then you

could go back for an appropriation of further funds to finance

the plan.

In my opinion there's nothing more fair, or nothing that

would be more acceptable to a senior body of government than

the fact that the Province of British Columbia had put their

money where their mouth was, and said: "We're prepared to go at

least this far. If you have a programme that we can participate

in, or that you will share in, our $10 million could very well

on a fifty-fifty basis provide $20 million of approved plans

for the farmers of this province."

Interjections.

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

Insurance): Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the Members of the

opposition getting stampeded into this tragic position by virtue of the

Liberals', at least they feel the Liberals' access to the law book of

B.C.

They've suggested an amendment to this bill that naturally

can't be acceptable to the Minister, by virtue of its

restrictiveness. You know I would like to quote. When we were

in opposition this is what one Member of the Legislature said.

He said: "The day is not far off when most farmers in this

province in B.C. will have to face bankruptcy."

"Most farmers will have to face bankruptcy" this Member

said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right, what else did he have to

say?

HON. MR. COCKE: One of the Members of the Legislature, Mr.

Chairman. He said it on February 24, 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the debate on?

HON. MR. COCKE: During Cyril Shelford's — at that time the

Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the old guard.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was his remedy, what did he

suggest?

HON. MR. COCKE: His remedy was lots of money to be poured

into the system. Lots of money to be poured in…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. "Something had to be done to

improve this situation" that Member said. Yes, that's what he

said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that so?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else did he have to say?

HON. MR. COCKE: He said "The gap between production costs

and sale value of farm products was out of hand."

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, and now he wants to restrict it, Mr.

Chairman, tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

[ Page 735 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: The Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith). Yes, there he sits.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: You got taken, Mr. Member, by the Liberals.

You represent a farming community despite the fact that you're

an insurance man. Get with it and work for the farmers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The worst thing you can do is read his old

speeches. (Laughter.)

AN HON MEMBER: It's better than listening to them.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's always interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear

the Member for "New Westminster…."

HON. MR. COCKE: "Westminster." Please learn to

pronounce it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister from New Westminster. (Laughter.)

He sort of floats around these chambers every now and again

like a swan. Then when he feels something to swoop down on,

regardless of whether it's industrial development or finance,

he sort of swoops down and tries to pluck up a little thing for

his own riding, and then he fades off into oblivion again, he

and Foulkes and Cockes and the whole issue. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: And look what he did to your suit.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member please

confine himself to the amendment before us?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it isn't what he did to my

suit, it's what he did to the Premier's pants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know the amazing thing about this

particular

section that really got to me was the other day when

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) stood in his

place and he said: "You know we really don't want to put a

limitation on the amount of moneys spent under this section,

because we might have too little, but on the other hand we

might have too much."

Now I would certainly like to walk into the bank and say: "Mr. Bank

Manager, I'd like to borrow some money to do something with, but I

don't really want to tell you how much money I want to borrow, because

if I do it might ask you for too little, and on the other hand, I might

ask you for too much."

What a tragic position the Minister of Agriculture finds

himself in. He has created a situation for all the farmers in

this area by bringing in Bill 42, making a promise while he

brought in the bill that he would protect them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're for building houses on farm land. Why

don't you sit down. You said it and now sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said he would protect the farmers. He would

make…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: He would make the agriculture Ministry in this

province a viable industry. First of all he had to protect the

farmer…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to get Jimmy baby.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and then he had to make agriculture a

viable industry and in so doing the Minister of Agriculture is

putting himself away out on the end of a limb. Not only is he

out on the end of a limb, Mr. Chairman, but he's got the rest

of the cabinet shaking that limb. So he's going to the rest of

the cabinet and he's going to the Minister of Finance and he's

saying: "Listen, I'm out on this limb. I'm in trouble, and

you've got to protect me. I made a commitment. And Mr. Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), I don't know how much it's going

to cost me. I don't want to ask you for any specific amount of

money because if I do, I might look silly. I'm not really a

businessman, I'm sort of new to the world of business…"

AN HON. MEMBER: You're new to everything.

MR. PHILLIPS: "…I really haven't figured out what I'm

going to have to do. I don't want to look silly in the eyes of

the farmers of British Columbia. I don't want to ask you for a

certain specific sum of money, because if I ask you for too

little I will have failed, and Mr. Minister of Finance, if I

ask you for too much you'll say: 'Look Mr. Minister, you're a

Chartered Accountant, you've overbudgeted. You've cost the

taxpayers of British Columbia too much money.'"

The Minister of Finance says: "If I give you too much money

you might spend it unwisely. You might go to certain areas of

the province, certain producers, and say 'Look, I've got a

whole bunch of money here the Minister of Finance gave me. Now

you vote for us in the next election and we'll sort of treat

you real

[ Page 736 ]

well.'"

It could be the poultry producers and it could be the hay

farmers in the Peace River area. But what we as the conscience

of this province, the real legislators of this province, want

you to do is to run the government like a business. We don't

want to take away and we don't want to give under the Minister

of Agriculture such unlimited authority as he is asking for. So

we have said in all sincerity: "Put a limit on this of $10

million — lots of money to start out with." All you've put on

the other bills, one of them you put $10 million on, the other

you put $20 million on. The Minister of Finance is up and he's

about to give the Minister of Agriculture some

definitions.

He's going to teach him a lesson in accounting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Will the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly I'm refining my remarks to the

amendment. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's getting pretty late, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly hope that the Minister of Finance

has given his Minister of Agriculture some good advice. I

support this amendment and I hope that every conscientious

Member in this Legislature will support this amendment.

I don't want any more threatening from the Minister of

Agriculture that he's going to go in my riding and say "You

voted against this." I'm trying to protect the Minister of

Agriculture from unlimited power which corrupts and corrupts

absolutely.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Trying to help you out.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Members opposite, as far

as I'm concerned, have made their position quite clear. We've

tried to make our position clear on this side.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) did give me

advice. He gave me good advice. He has assured me that when it

comes to discussing this in cabinet, and in Treasury, I'll have

his full support in not limiting the amount of money that is

available in this legislation to protect the farmers. I have

that advice and I have that assurance.

We'd welcome a vote on this

section now and the Member

opposite can vote as he sees fit in the interest or otherwise

of the farmers in the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, our party

is going to vote against the amendment for the very simple reason that

if we voted for the amendment it would still be a terrible bill.

We fail to see why we should support an attempt to tinker

with a bill which is so bad in original concept and design that

really we don't think it can be brought in with amendment, this

amendment, in a way which could be adequate for the purpose of

either this Legislature or for the farmers of the province.

Therefore we will vote against the amendment because we do

not feel that the amendment in any way can make this an

acceptable bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting the

amendment for the very….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ask your caucus?

MR. WALLACE: We also caucused, yes. (Laughter.) It's a

little easier than for most parties in this House.

The very simple reason, Mr. Chairman, is that you can always

make a bad bill better and I find it unfortunate that there's

been so much rhetoric attached to the debate because really, as

I have often pointed out to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and

he's agreed with me, the important thing in this House is for

the Members on both sides to agree to disagree many times, to

state your point and sit down as fast as you can.

We've had a lot of repetition tonight and all I'm saying on

behalf of our party in regard to the amendment, is that it is

weak in some respects. We don't know the kind of programmes by

which you could spend $10 million before we have another

session of the House.

I think that in that regard I have to admit to some

reservations about supporting such a ballpark figure. I think

one of the weaknesses of the Minister's argument has been a

sense of urgency which to a degree does exist. But the degree

of urgency which exists I don't think justifies such an

all-encompassing bill when in fact we will be meeting here

again within three or four months.

On that basis I regret the Minister's stand on this bill.

But on the other hand, I do believe that it's a responsibility

of opposition if it can make a bill a little better, even

though it comes far short of what we, in this party, would have

liked to see, I feel that it is our obligation to support this

kind of amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I think, — Mr. Chairman, that the amendment was

introduced in good faith and I think that it's a generous one as well.

It's one that can look after the needs of any programme which the

Minister might initiate between now and the next session of

[ Page 737 ]

the Legislature.

I think one only has to make a comparison of the kind of

dollars that are presently spent in the field of agriculture in

the province. Looking at the estimates that were presented in

the Legislature just last spring, the Minister felt that there

was ample money provided at that time to look after the needs

of agriculture in the province. He voted a great variety of

things: the Minister's office, general administration,

production services, special services, milk board, experimental

farms, crop insurance, farmers land clearing and domestic water

assistance, pest control, Pound

District Act , Grasshopper

Control Act , Natural Products

Marketing British Columbia Act ,

Agriculture Rehabilitation

Development Act .

Those are all the functions of the Department of

Agriculture, which totals in the estimates which just a few

short months ago the Minister thought was adequate to look

after the needs of the agricultural community in this province,

totals $12 million.

We're talking, at this very moment, of almost doubling the

kind of money which the Minister just a few months ago thought

was adequate to look after the needs of the agriculture

community for the current fiscal year. Here we are, we're

asking, in a reasonable fashion, that the Minister double,

virtually double, the amount of money that it has allocated for

agriculture in the province for just the next few m months.

If he does utilize the $10 million, which I don't believe is

conceivable to do between now and the next meeting of this

Legislative Assembly, I would hope that in all fairness the

Minister and the government would look at the bill and not

attempt to abuse the intent with which it was presented.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 34

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Nimsick

Stupich

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the

committee rise and report to the Speaker that this vote took

place and ask leave of the House to record it at that time.

section 4.

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

speaking very briefly on

section 4, it seems to me that in his

well-intentioned haste to assist the agricultural community in

the Province of British Columbia the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) was not able to spell out in more detail

precisely the kinds of moneys that he intends to spend for the

balance of this fiscal year under the bill which is presently

being debated.

I would like to say that on the basis of my observation, I

have very high regard for the Minister's intentions with

respect to agriculture and to assisting the farmer, the

rancher, the people engaged in all aspects of agriculture. He

has indicated informally, and I believe in this House and I

think the records would show, that he is in a hurry. He has

made reference on more than one occasion to the fact that he

perhaps wouldn't be here very long — might not be here very

long, I think is more correctly paraphrasing what he has said — and so

that's an acceptable position for the Minister to take.

He is obviously a man in a hurry attempting to correct some of

the ills of the past and to assist the people whose activity

falls within his jurisdiction as a Minister of the Crown.

I really think that, putting some of the heat aside, Mr.

Chairman — some of the heat which has been generated this

evening and some of which has been most unfortunate — we still

come back to the inconsistency on the part of the party in

power in this province today with respect to the position it

has taken in the past on a number of occasions. I refer

specifically to the record of the debates of the Legislative

Assembly for February 10, 1971, where the then Leader of the

Opposition and now Premier of the Province was speaking, I

admit, about public accounts, but I think that the quotation is

most appropriate. He said in part:

Mr. Speaker, we have been elected by the people of British

Columbia to supervise the expenditure of their money. To

properly do this, we must have before us every single account,

every single record, every single book that deals with the

fiscal or monetary matters in terms of the people of this

province.

Mr. Chairman, whether speaking of public accounts or

speaking about a particular bill, such as No. 9, we simply

cannot agree, within several lines, the granting of sweeping

powers with no upper limit. It is just not acceptable, Mr.

Chairman, no matter

[ Page 738 ]

how enthusiastic many of us may be about getting

busy to

assist the people engaged in this industry in B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support

of the remarks from the Member for Saanich and the Islands. I

had the opportunity of travelling with this Member this summer

on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. We had the

opportunity of looking into many aspects of agriculture.

Sincerely we brought in recommendations which we thought would

assist the agricultural community. And I think this bill that

is before us now overrides all of the sincere work that that

committee did last summer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Section 4, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS:

Section 4. Yes, certainly. That is the whole

crux of this bill,

section 4. As the Member for Saanich and the

Islands so ably put it — we do not want to give to the Minister — and I

really don't think the Minister wants to take unto

himself — the fantastic powers that he is trying to do in this

bill.

This Legislature is here not to give blank-cheque

legislation but to try and protect the rights of all of the

taxpayers of British Columbia. I have to again say that I

support wholeheartedly the remarks from the Member for Saanich

and the Islands when he says that the Minister did not even

show the remotest idea when he met with the committee this

summer that he would take unto himself the unlimited powers

that he is trying to do in this bill, Mr. Chairman.

I am disappointed in the Minister's attitude and I am

disappointed in this type of legislation. I thought we were

going to work together for the good, the common good, of all of

the taxpayers in British Columbia and for the common good of

all the agricultural committee and all the agricultural

community. I am very disappointed and I certainly support the

remarks of the Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

Lorimer

Lea

Young

King

Lauk

Nicolson

Radford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Skelly

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Gorst

Steves

Kelly

Barnes

Lewis

Webster

NAYS — 11

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Curtis

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, on rising, I ask that the

committee advise Mr. Speaker that a division was taken on

section 4 and ask leave to report the same in the Journals .

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Farm Income Assurance Act ,

reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 31, Mr.

Speaker.

VETERINARY LABORATORIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A query on the definition of

veterinary laboratory — "any facility or class of facility,

upon which or in which diseases are diagnosed." I wonder

whether the Minister would indicate whether labs where it is

not just a question of diagnoses are included — where there may

be, for instance, a lab set up for serum or something of that

nature. For example, monkeys are used for certain serum; and I

wonder whether or not this Act would apply in the case of

monkeys being kept for serum purposes, or whether it is only in

the case of diagnosis.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Well, the

legislation is dealing with veterinary laboratories, so while

it does read that way, we're dealing with veterinary

laboratories in this

section and we would not be concerned with

serum analysis as you've described.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So it would only apply to

[ Page 739 ]

very few of them.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Very few of them.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

section 2: I wonder if the Minister would indicate the

reason that he has restricted the operations of veterinary

laboratories to people who are registered veterinarians. There

is no question that registered veterinarians may be qualified

to operate a laboratory of this kind, to make the diagnoses and

the tests that are carried out. But I'm sure that there are

laboratory technicians equally as competent as veterinarians to

carry on this responsibility. It seems to me unduly restrictive

to give this only to those people who are licensed to carry on

the practice of veterinary surgery and medicine in this

province.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did have advance warning

of that question from the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer), I guess it was. In taking this up with

the legislative counsel, while it is true that there might be

technicians working and there may be someone other than a

registered veterinarian who actually owns the lab or is running

it, within the sort of facilities that are going to be licensed

under this legislation we feel that it is necessary there be at

least one veterinarian as such since we are dealing with

diseases that affect farm livestock. That's the reason for

having at least one veterinarian there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Question on

section 2(2): could I ask why

there is this restriction of 60 days? Why it would not be

preferable to have the normal procedure for bringing a whole

Act in?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Simply to give time for the facility to be

inspected by staff to see that it does qualify to be licensed

as a veterinary laboratory under this Act.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would just like to ask on

section 7(b): why it is necessary to prescribe standards of

construction for the lab? What is the significance of that

particular requirement?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in some instances live

animals will be kept on these premises, and if so, then we will want to

have certain standards of construction. Other material is going to be

stored — and again standards of construction for maintaining certain

specimens, if you like, so that they are in a position to be examined

at that time or later on if there is some need for holding them for

some time.

MR. MORRISON: I just wondered if there had been in the past

people who hadn't followed that kind of practice which would

require you to put it in the Act? Is this a common occurrence — that

the labs don't have adequate construction and don't have

presently adequate storage area? Is that the reason? Have you

had a problem in the past or is this something you anticipate

in the future?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this

legislation in second reading we said it is new legislation; it

is to make sure that the laboratory facilities that do exist in

the province, or new ones that are established, will meet

certain standards — that they will maintain records, that they

will store specimens. And in connection with storing them, we

want to make sure that they are stored under conditions that

make possible examination at some future time meaningful — the

fact that they are stored under if not ideal conditions at

least standard conditions, that is, standard from one

laboratory to another. So it's not so much that we've had

trouble with any of this, but we just feel that these are

reasonable controls to impose at this time in the life of

agriculture in B.C.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further to the earlier question regarding

section 2: wouldn't

section 7 cover that fact? You have

flexibility there which I would have thought would have covered

it. I'm just wondering if there is any specific need for the

extra 60 days in a separate section. It surprises me that it is

there.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the only information that I have.

It's there to provide time for people who are practising or for

people that have these facilities right now. In

section 7 we're

thinking more about new ones that may be coming on line. It's

the only impression I have on that.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 740 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Veterinary Laboratories

Act , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 44, Mr.

Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 44; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, while this bill provides more in

the way of particularity than was the case in Bill 9, I am

concerned in the definition of "farm operator". The scope is

given to the Minister to decide who is or is not a farm

operator, and before passing

section 1, I would like to have

some clear indication from the Minister to the parameters that

he or his department may have in mind in prescribing the

regulations which will give definition to who is a farm

operator or likely to become one.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can say something

as guidance. Under ALDA we would now restrict it to people who

are earning less than $1,600 farm income, and we restrict it to

people who are earning more than $25,000 family income off the

farm. The Member will recall that when the Select Standing

Committee discussed this very question there was disagreement

within the committee.

They did arrive at a consensus by a majority vote, but there

was disagreement on this question of defining a farm operator — that is

in connection with

section 2(1) because that's where

the definition means something.

It's something that we want to be able to adjust from time

to time — I think I'm repeating my remarks in second reading

now — but want to be able to adjust from time to time as we see

the needs of the agricultural industry changing. At the present

time I am inclined in the direction of the definition under

ALDA, but whether it will come out exactly in line with the

terms of ALDA, I'm just not sure at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for that

because the limits were certainly of great concern to the

committee in our deliberations for presenting our report.

However, what I was hoping the Minister might indicate was the

person who intends to become a farmer.

It seems to me that when we are going to be extending credit

without much definition in this bill to people who intend to

engage in agriculture, that the Minister should have some

pretty clear idea of the kind of qualifications that he would

expect a person who intends to go into agriculture and borrow

money from the fund for that purpose.

There are many people who have good intentions for going

into farming, many young people that we would want to encourage

to take up farming as an occupation. But there is no question

that modern farming is becoming increasingly sophisticated and

a great deal of knowledge is required in order to have any

assurance that there will be success — knowledge, together with

a tremendous interest in farming as an avocation.

Throughout the tours this summer it was obvious, I think, to

all members of the committee that most people in farming today

were of a very special breed and they were prepared to put up

with the hardships, the long hours and difficult work in order

to make their farms function. But as well as that they had to

have extensive knowledge in farming economics and in the

techniques of their particular commodity group.

It seems to me that some standard ought to be established by

the Minister and his department for those who are approaching

farming as an occupation and who are coming to this fund for

loans.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the

Members that we do hope to be participating with Ottawa on a

special programme for young farmers, but whether or not that

materializes, again I have to refer to

section 2(2) and the end

of it, where we say "with respect to farming operation intended

to be carried on," and in that instance we are thinking

about people who, while they may not have a history of farming

income, would still not be ruled out if they are young people

who want to become established in farming.

Although there would be some experience requirement it might

be experience they would gain while they are getting into it,

there might be some assistance in the meantime. But before they

would be entrusted with a relatively large capital investment,

there would have to be some requirement such as that.

But certainly the intent of the bill, in part at least, is

to make it possible for young people with limited means to

become established in farming.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't wish to prolong the debate on

this particular section, but the intention aspect is also found

directly in the definition of farm operator because a person

who is likely to become a farm operator, and I'm sure that the

Members are pleased to know that the Minister recognizes

that

[ Page 741 ]

some experience is required.

But that's my question: what kind of tests are they going to

provide? Will they be required to be graduates from the

Department of Agriculture at University of British Columbia? I

would hope that wouldn't be the requirement because it would be

a very stringent one. But there is in Dawson Creek the farm

vocational school. Obviously that kind of experience, I'm sure,

would be satisfactory to the Minister. But there might be

people who would gain experience in other ways.

As well as that, there must be a capital requirement. Surely

we wouldn't be thinking of advancing any significant sums by

way of loans from the fund unless the person who was going into

farming was also bringing some of his or her capital as well. I

wonder if the Minister has some indication to give to the

committee as to what his standards in that respect might

be?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not too much. You do mention the Dawson

Creek School, and there was a committee recommendation that

that be expanded more along farming lines, and this was a hope

of the Department of Agriculture when that school was first

established but they weren't able to persuade the previous

government that this should be done. This government is looking

very closely at that recommendation of the committee.

I recognize what you say, that you can't take someone with

no experience and no capital and turn something over to them.

There are different ways of getting experience and one way

would be at a school such as the Dawson Creek School. Another

way would even be at presently operated government farms, or by

making some arrangement, and these are some of the things that

we kicked around at staff meetings, even by making some

arrangement with successful farmers who are operating now and

giving them some on-farm experience and then letting them start

on a farm that would be leased to them rather than one that

would be purchased by them, at least initially.

So there are these ways of working into it. If they are

young people you can afford to take a bit of time to make sure

they are getting started on the right track, and that is

certainly what we want to do, get them started on the right

track.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister

of Agriculture a couple of questions with regard to the same

section the Member was just speaking about.

I've heard rumours that the agricultural course at the Dawson Creek

Vocational School is going to be phased out in favour of the Fairview

Agricultural Community College. This is entirely opposite to the

recommendations of the agricultural committee report that a ranch be

added to the Dawson Creek Vocational School farm. I just wonder if the

Minister would assure me that this course, which is very popular in

British Columbia, will be continued and that the agricultural school

farm will be continued. Could he give me some assurance that the ranch

which we recommended from the agricultural committee will be added to

the vocational school farm? Because agriculture in British Columbia,

particularly in the Peace River area, is where the future of the…well

I sometimes call it the bread-basket of British Columbia, and I think

it is. It's the future agricultural community of British Columbia and I

think that it is very important that this be kept intact.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's the first rumour to

that effect that I've heard. I don't know where you could have

heard that. The only thing I've ever heard is the standing

committee report.

I've visited the farm, as you know. I'd be very interested

in doing exactly the sort of programme the select standing

committee recommended rather than seeing anything…but

that's something I want to talk about with my cabinet

colleagues.

But when you say that it is very well supported, I think not

well-enough supported, because there isn't an operating ranch

in connection with it. So I would hope that it will be better

supported and that it will be a much more active programme. But

as I say, that is something I want to discuss with my cabinet

colleagues.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've just got one short question. Maybe the

Minister might answer my simple question on

section 2.

Will the construction of a farm home be included in

subsection 2(c), farm buildings? Does that include a family

home?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As an ex-farmer, not so successful as the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), and as an accountant, I

consider the farm home to be an essential part of the farm

building complex.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 742 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Agricultural Credit Act ,

reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, Members have

brought to my attention that the luncheon is scheduled for

tomorrow. Will it be complete by 2 p.m.? Yes, and those who are

not finished can take a doggy bag. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada