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 10, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 519 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Heavy water plant proposal. Hon. Mr. Lauk

— 519

Possible phasing out of ferry dining rooms. Mr. McClelland — 519

Renegotiation of Columbia River Treaty. Mr. McGeer — 520

Recognition of Chile. Mr. Wallace — 520

Invitations to NDP fund-raising dinner. Mr. Chabot — 521

Release of the Shortliffe report. Mr. McGeer — 521

Subsidy on milk. Mr. Wallace — 522

Future natural gas to go through B.C. pipelines. Mr. Smith — 522

Personal Information Reporting Act. (Bill 63)

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 523

Department of Transport and Communications Act. (Bill

64).

Hon. Mr. Strachan. Introduction and first reading — 523

Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act. (Bill 66).

Mr. McGeer. Introduction and first reading — 523

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

Second reading. Hon. Mr. King — 523

Mr. Liden — 523

Hon. Mr. King — 523

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act. (Bill 29). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 524

Mr. Williams — 524

Mr. Wallace — 525

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 525

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport

Act.

(Bill 30).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 526

Mr. Williams — 526

Mr. Morrison — 526

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 526

Mr. Phillips — 527

Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 527

Mr. Phillips — 529

Mr. Williams — 530

Mr. Wallace — 531

Mr. Gabelmann — 532

Mr. Smith — 533

Mr. Liden — 534

Mr. Kelly — 535

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 535

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act. (Bill 43).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 538

Mr. Wallace — 539

Mr. McClelland — 539

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 539

Domestic Animal Protection Act. (Bill 45). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 539

Mr. Phillips — 540

Mr. Curtis — 542

Mr. Williams — 542

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 542

Mr. Lewis — 542

Mr. Chabot — 543

Mr. Gardom — 543

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 543

Livestock Protection Act. (Bill 46). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 544

Mr. Phillips — 545

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 545

Beef Grading Act. (Bill 6).

Committee, report and third reading — 545

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

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 545

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 546

Mr. Wallace — 546

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 546

Mr. Phillips — 546

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 547

Report and third reading — 548

Farm Income Assurance Act. (Bill 9).

Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 548

Mr. Smith — 549

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 549

Mr. Wallace — 549

Mr. Gardom — 550

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 550

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 551

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are very honoured

in the House today as a result of the efforts of the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Sitting on the

Floor with us is Sir John Eccles. Sir John was a Nobel prize

winner in 1963; he's a learned author of more than 300

scientific works, and he's a visiting lecturer this week at

British Columbia universities. He's a former Rhodes Scholar

from Australia — unfortunately in rowing rather than rugger — who distinguished himself at Oxford as a student, teaching and

visiting lecturer and honorary fellow of Magdalene College in

Oxford.

He is a holder of many medals and awards from the formal

scientific societies of the world, including the Royal Medal of

the Royal Society, and was knighted by Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth in recognition for his pre-eminence in his field of

research.

Sir John is accompanied by a great British Columbian, Bill

Gibson.

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

the opposition side I would like to welcome Sir John too. He's

recognized as the world's greatest living brain scientist. But

I want to assure the Members that he's not here out of

professional curiosity. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I asked that question before I introduced

him.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce to the House that it's

someone else's birthday today. I'd like the House to

congratulate Marj Nichols on her 22nd birthday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a personal note, I want to take the

opportunity of introducing to the House my own Member of

Parliament, a man of outstanding service to Canada, an

outstanding British Columbian … and can you please help me

with my culvert? — Mark Rose.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

the Members to welcome to the House today — seated in the

Members' gallery — the mayor of Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm and

his wife Mrs. Vander Zalm.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce

the mayor of Surrey as well, since he is one of my constituents. But I'll take

the opportunity to say hello to my MP as well, and to introduce his wife, who

is sitting in the gallery; and it's nice to see her. (Laughter.)

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have a group of

students from the White Rock-South Surrey area, from two

schools; the Earl Merriot Junior Secondary and the Semiahmoo

Senior Secondary, along with their teachers George Abbott and

Doug Oram. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a time-honoured

custom, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, with so many

introductions, to welcome to the House all of the guests who

have not yet been welcomed. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: A custom honoured by that Member all the

time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Haven't you got any friends here?

Oral questions.

HEAVY WATER PLANT PROPOSAL

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked of

me and I said that I would attempt to answer it today.

It was a question from the Hon. Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips). He indicated in his question that my department

was involved in a proposal to Ottawa with respect to the

location of a heavy water plant in the Province of British

Columbia. My department is not so involved and, so far as I am

aware, there is no such proposal, nor was there any indication

that my department was involved in the newspaper clipping which

I have and to which the Member referred.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that the reason

under our rules that we do not, according to Beauchesne , use

newspaper clippings as the basis for a question is that you

cannot yourself take personal and honourable responsibility for

the statement that you make in your questions. Therefore, you

must ascertain that your question has some basis in fact before

you ask it. That's the reason for the rule.

POSSIBLE PHASING OUT

OF FERRY DINING ROOMS

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question

to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). Yesterday he indicated that there were some

structural changes going on to the dining rooms of the ferry

system in

[ Page 520 ]

British Columbia. I'd like to ask him if it's true that

management people within the ferry system have already informed

ferry personnel that the dining rooms will be phased out in the

very near future and that their jobs are in jeopardy.

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

no knowledge that any management personnel have taken any such step.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. When

the Minister stepped in to settle the ferry dispute some time

ago he made a promise to the ferry personnel that he would

appoint a high-level mediator to study all of the concerns of

the ferry personnel with regard to their job situations. I'm

wondering whether that person has yet been appointed. If not,

when will he be appointed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a letter from the union concerned,

and I have not yet replied to it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Does the Minister plan to honour the pledge that he

made to appoint the mediator to look into the problems of the ferry service?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you I have not yet prepared a

reply to the letter.

MR. McCLELLAND: But what about your promise? What are you

going to do about it? Reply to the question; never mind the

letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer. The letter was sent

prior to the strike by the ferry workers — the telegram was

sent. The telegram is public knowledge. I would ask you to read

the telegram and then come back and ask your question.

RENEGOTIATION OF

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. McGEER: We'll try the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), Mr. Speaker.

In view of the $340 million plus that British Columbia lost

on the Columbia River Treaty, and in view of the reports of

power shortages along with natural gas and oil shortages, I

would like to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance what

steps are currently being taken to renegotiate the Columbia

River Treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the election of this government

it was announced that we had intended to explore all possible ways to see whether

or not the treaty could be renegotiated. The only avenue that was open to us

was a

section of the Canada-British Columbia agreement related to the treaty

that allowed for the province to make a direct appeal to the federal government

on the basis of new information or related information, and to have the federal

government then approach the United States for new discussions on the treaty.

I met with the Prime Minister once on this matter and shared

with him our intention to approach the federal government

through that

section of the British Columbia-federal Government

of Canada treaty.

We have, since that time, been engaged in the necessary

research to make a detailed presentation relative to that

opening of that particular

section of the Canada-British

Columbia agreement along with detailed information that we will

need to present related to the second 30 years that the

previous administration sold out to the United States. Now,

when those two presentations are ready we will be meeting with

the federal government.

I agree completely with the position and the question of the

Member for West Point Grey, and I want to make it clear

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver–Point Grey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point Grey; West Point Grey; Point Grey.

It is a bit of a hangover related to earlier days.

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the Member's criticism,

but there was a verbal commitment on the second 30 years of

that treaty, which this government does not in any way agree

with. The former administration wanted to sell out the power to

2024 instead of 1994. The whole matter is now being researched,

as I said, and we will be presenting our detailed information

and appeal to the federal government.

RECOGNITION OF CHILE

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

the Premier, who is a social democrat, if he has made any

contact with the federal government with respect to Canada's

official recognition of the illegal government in Chile.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are releasing today a

letter sent on October 5 outlining our caucus position opposed

to the recognition of the military junta in Chile. Along with

that, we conveyed to our federal colleagues our complete

approval of their condemnation at the federal level of the

recognition of what must be considered a fascist regime in

Chile.

Speaking on behalf of my colleagues and the

[ Page 521 ]

government benches, I must say that we totally reject the

concept that the federal government should recognize the new

junta in Chile. Regardless of anyone's political philosophy,

there is no question that that was purely an illegal uprising

against a democratically-elected government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

While agreeing completely with the remarks about the illegality

of the regime, may I ask whether the government consulted the

Sidney resident who was imprisoned by the junta and who was

released subsequent to recognition at the intervention of the

Canadian embassy authorities in Chile prior to taking the step

the Premier indicated his party has taken?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We didn't consult anyone, and we don't

think that principles should be bargained for, Mr. Speaker. It

is a matter of fact that it is an illegal act against the

Chilean government. It is a military illegal act — a violent

overthrow, with murder accompanying it.

It is obvious to us that the federal government acted in

haste. It is not a question of consulting people who had been

there; it is a question of consulting one's conscience. It was

obvious after the examination of the facts that that government

is tyrannical, anti-democratic, and should not have been

recognized by the federal administration.

INVITATIONS TO NDP

FUND-RAISING DINNER

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Recently the New

Democratic Party held a fund-raising dinner in Vancouver. I am

wondering whether it is a regular function of the Department of

Industrial Development to send out invitations to people in the

business community to attend these fund-raising functions of

the NDP.

HON. MR. LAUK: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, it was an

open public dinner; anyone was entitled to attend and purchase

tickets. They were being sold to everyone. I would have

welcomed any Member of the opposition.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You didn't send me a

letter, though. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I can promise you that every

Member of the opposition is invited to the next dinner as long

as they have the cash. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it this has to do with government

business rather than private?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has to do with government

business. It has to do with the public conduct of a Minister of

the Crown. It has to do with the proper administration of a

department. Mr. Speaker, you can smile and laugh all you want

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am smiling at the fact that you are

making a speech instead of asking a question.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister if it is

a regular function of his department to send out invitations to

attend NDP fund-raising dinners. Is that a regular function?

One of the participants at this dinner maintained that he

received an invitation from your department. Was it a

gilt-edged invitation; was it by phone, telegram? How was it

communicated? Was there an invitation? These are questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order.

MR. CHABOT: Just because you are embarrassed you don't have

to keep yelling, "Order."

Was it an invitation he couldn't turn down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CHABOT: No answers from the Minister. He's ashamed of

his act.

MR. SPEAKER: I think he has already answered you.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Jimmy and Ben are the new economic advisers to

the NDP government. (Laughter.)

RELEASE OF THE

SHORTLIFFE REPORT

MR. McGEER: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of

Health Services. Several days ago we asked him whether he would

release the Shortliffe report. He said he would consider this

for awhile. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to announce

that he is going to release it today.

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

Insurance): Mr. Speaker, the Shortliffe report was not a report

to this Ministry; it was a report to the Foulkes committee. I

have considered every aspect of releasing this Shortliffe

report and I don't feel that the Shortliffe report is really

relevant.

[ Page 522 ]

It is certainly not relevant to this House. It was made

after the approach of a committee that reports to me, and the

committee report will be made public.

I said a few days ago that the Foulkes report will become a

public document for public discussion, but if, in fact, I

release every working paper that went into the making of the

Foulkes report, this place would be like a confetti factory. I

just don't think it would be worthwhile. So therefore I will

not be releasing the Shortliffe report.

MR. McGEER: The Minister's reply doesn't surprise me, Mr.

Speaker, but I would like to inquire whether he would be

prepared to use the influence of his office to see that the

Shortliffe report, in toto , appears at the time the Foulkes

report is released to the general public.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered

that question. The Shortliffe report is not relevant. It would

be as though I was asking the Foulkes committee to release all

their correspondence.

They are charged with bringing a report to this Ministry. I

believe, as the Minister responsible for this department, that

that report should be made available. But I don't really think

that every contribution should be made available. I just don't

see it.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members, page 148,

Beauchesne , that a Member must not ask for information which

deals with matters that are concerning the advice given to the

Crown or officers of the Crown, or which, by their nature, are

secret. I take it that this statement of the Minister falls

somewhere in that category, I hope that will terminate the

questions on this subject.

SUBSIDY ON MILK

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Agriculture if he could tell the House at what stage

negotiations are with regard to obtaining a federal subsidy on

milk. If, in fact, there is not such a subsidy forthcoming,

will the provincial government consider providing such a

subsidy?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer to

the first question: close. The second question is not

applicable under the circumstances. Very close.

MR. WALLACE: Very close?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. We are committed to make a joint

announcement when the time comes. I had hoped that it would be

by today, but at any time.

FUTURE NATURAL GAS TO GO

THROUGH B.C. PIPELINES

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Attorney General with respect to the operations of the

Energy Commission. Has any study been done or are you doing

anything to ascertain the amount of natural gas production that

could be brought into the gathering system, provided that wells

that have been drilled were tied in to the main pipelines?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The answer to that,

Mr. Speaker, is yes. Discussions are going on with the industry

at the present time — a day-long discussion yesterday, and

further discussions, including possible piping facilities and

other matters, including distribution of what resources we have

as well.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question. The discovery of gas in

the Monkman Pass area, of course, is of great concern. It is in

British Columbia, but the Grizzly Valley area has been explored

by the companies that are there. They have indicated they would

like to divert that natural gas to Alberta.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't do that.

MR. SMITH: Well, to the Alberta pipeline, yes, they have

indicated they would like to sell the gas to Alberta. Is the

energy board investigating the possibility of tying that into

the existing pipelines to the southern part of B.C.?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope and

expect that British Columbia gas from the Grizzly fields would

go through the British Columbia system.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, is it to do with something happening

today or in September?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's something that didn't happen in

September.

MR. SPEAKER: We've already passed the motion to have

introduction of bills.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I thought the Premier had an announcement

when he stood up so….

MR. SPEAKER: He made the motion….

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[ Page 523 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be very short, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like

to know when the cabinet Ministers are going to answer the

questions that are on the order paper. Question 1 is still on

the order paper and the House has been in session nearly a

month. Those in government promised that they would answer all

of these questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you've brought it to their

attention.

Introduction of bills.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

REPORTING ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 63 intituled Personal Information Reporting Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 63 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND

COMMUNICATIONS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Transport

and Communications Act .

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY FIRST

AID ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 66

intituled Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 66 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PAYMENT

OF WAGES ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 is

an Act that is presented to clear up some of the problems that

have revealed themselves in the power of the Department of

Labour to recover wages under the Payment of Wages Act.

We have found that there has been an oversight in the

legislation which prevented the department from collecting

assignments of wages, such as union dues, health benefits and

pension plan contributions that are assigned by the employee as

a part of the collective agreement and which are consequently

deductible from his payroll cheque. These, for all intents and

purposes, since they do form part and parcel of the collective

agreement, should be designated as wages within the meaning of

the Act and therefore recoverable through the normal processes

of recovering wages that are unpaid.

This amendment simply accomplishes that purpose and provides

that designated deductions agreed to by the employee and the

employer will be designated as wages and hence recoverable.

It's a simple, straightforward amendment and I would commend it

to second reading.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, while I rise to support

this bill, there is some question in my mind. The way it is

drafted, I have some doubts as to whether or not it'll reach

into the fringes. I know that the assignments on wages are one

thing; but in addition to that, there is in many contracts now,

particularly in the building trades, in addition to the wages

some payment per hour that goes into welfare funds that provide

some very important benefits to workers — most of the medical

plans, dental plans, wage loss insurance plans and that sort of

thing. I'm not convinced that the bill quite covers that and I

hope the Minister will clear it up for me when he winds up the

debate. If an amendment is necessary, perhaps it can be

forthcoming.

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

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the point the Member for Delta

makes is well taken. As a matter of fact, I do anticipate an

amendment, which will be presented to the House before

committee consideration of the bill. There are a number of

problems and it's questionable as to whether the language of

this bill covers each situation. We are studying that and I do

anticipate that some amendments might well be presented for the

committee stage.

[ Page 524 ]

However, the principle of this bill is what we're dealing

with at this time. It's clearly to make recoverable all those

provisions of the contractual relationship between the employee

and his employer, which should be construed as wages and which

should be recoverable in the same way that salary and wages are

recoverable per se . Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

40,

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act .

Motion approved, Bill 40 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REAL ESTATE ACT

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

are some minor matters in this bill, including retraining of

salesmen and provisions as to those who compile lists of

listings but don't sell, but there are two major principles

contained in the bill.

The first one is to make it clear that the provisions

relating to prospectuses, the landlord and tenant provisions

relating to due notice and payment of moving fees and the

municipal provisions requiring municipal approval, apply to the

conversion of apartments to cooperative residential premises

as they do in the case of conversions under Strata Titles

Act .

The second major principle deals with those residents of

British Columbia who purchase retirement property outside of

the borders of the province, usually in the south, sometimes

subject to high-pressure salesmanship, sometimes offered a ride

by way of a junket down to Arizona, or to Texas, or to British

Guiana; those who see in southern climes in their retirement

years the lure of Florida sand lots or Arizona dry lands,

Florida marsh lots, or Argentinean pampas, and who are

subjected to heavy selling pressure in this province by

fly-by-night salesmen with no roots in this province.

Therefore, in this bill we provide that such properties can

only be sold after provision to the residents of B.C. of a

proper prospectus, and can only be sold through a duly licensed

British Columbian agent.

Now there's a limit to how far we can go to protect people

of British Columbia when they purchase outside of the province.

But if the sale is made in here, in this province, and if the

solicitation takes place in this province, we want it to

measure up to the standards of protection which apply to B.C.

sales. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd just like to

make one observation concerning the bill, which is a good bill.

The Attorney General illustrated many valid and florid points

in his opening remarks, but I rather wonder why the government

in its legislation, particularly with reference to this

particular statute, hasn't taken into account the very good

experience that British Columbia has learned from the amendment

to the Legal Professions Act , which came into being over the

past two years, to the effect that the interest from 75 per

cent of the trust funds that a lawyer has is put to public use

into the Law Foundation.

There is no question of a doubt that the enormity of trust

funds in the Province of British Columbia are in the real

estate field, and there's literally millions and millions of

the dollars per year in trust. This would produce a very, very

interesting and good interest return for the people of British

Columbia. The real estate agents themselves are not permitted

to receive any interest income on it, and I think there could

be indeed comparable legislation to that which we find in the

Legal Professions Act to see that the interest from the trust

funds in real estate transactions would pass to the similar

body as it does under the other statute. I would much

appreciate receiving the Attorney General's comments on this

point, when he sits down, as to whether or not there has been

any development of government policy on the point — if it's in

the process of being considered or if the decision has been

made.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I concur

entirely with what the Attorney General has said, particularly

in connection with the need to protect our citizens from the

so-called "fly-by-night" subdivider, promoter of properties,

outside of this province.

However, I would point out to the Attorney General that

British Columbia has not necessarily been in the forefront of

establishing controls in respect to subdivisions. Many of the

jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States have

requirements much more stringent than those which we have in

British Columbia. I am concerned when he talks about the sale

of such properties by people who have their roots in this

province that by insisting the sales take place through the

facilities of a licensed agent he is neglecting those

responsible companies in the Province of British Columbia, who

have already taken the step of complying with the existing

prospectus regulations in British Columbia, and who have in

British Columbia full-time offices with their employees with

their roots in the community, carrying on their business in a

manner at least equal to that in which business is carried on

by British Columbia subdividers themselves. By forcing those

people into the hands of licensed agents is only to

[ Page 525 ]

increase the costs that they incur in doing business in

British Columbia and may lead them to move elsewhere with the

loss of employment to British Columbia.

I happen to know of one company which has complied with all

of our statutory requirements, which has had the fullest review

by the superintendent of insurance, and which employs 50 people

in this particular project, Those people, at the moment, are in

danger of losing their livelihood and having their livelihood

turned over to someone who is a licensed agent.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General

might well consider, with the superintendent of insurance,

whether or not companies registered in this province, complying

with the prospectus requirements, having an office in this

province and employees in this province, could somehow or other

by registration be able to carry on the business without using

the services of a licensed agent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sell property outside.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sell property outside, that's right.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we will support the

aims of this bill in principle. I am particularly eager to

support the legislation which will close one of the loopholes

in the present legislation allowing conversion of apartments to

condominiums. This has caused some considerable heartburn in

elderly people in Oak Bay who had chosen to retire to rental

accommodation and have subsequently had to make substantial

upheavals in their later years because of a change they did not

anticipate in the accommodation where they were living. So the

idea that it will not be possible to simply get around the

Strata Titles Act by forming a cooperative is very

welcome.

We also welcome the intent. I am not sure that I understand

all the details — and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) has raised a very good point. I can only say

that in principle this party would certainly support any

attempts by legislation to prevent people being misled or being

offered something more than what is actually available.

I wonder also if I could ask if the Attorney General would consider to what

degree advertising of these kinds of junkets should perhaps be incorporated

either in this Act or possibly in a better way in another Act. It seems to me

that the biggest danger in misleading people is in the form of the full-page

advertising of these, as he so eloquently described them, various attractions

of California and Arizona — towns developed in the middle of the dessert specifically

for retirement purposes. While it may offer some measure of protection that

the prospectus must meet the legislation and that it must be a regular agent,

I wonder to what degree there is still the danger that misleading advertising

could still result in elderly people becoming involved in this kind of unfortunate

situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the points

raised: the suggestion of the second Member for Vancouver

Point-Grey (Mr. Gardom) is a very useful one. Quite out of

order in the discussion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it's

not part of the bill, but a very useful suggestion.

Maybe the bill's out of order and his suggestion is in

order. (Laughter.) But it's one that is now imperishably

enshrined in Hansard , which will be available to me tomorrow

afternoon, and one which I intend actively to pursue because I

know that the interest accruing on lawyers' trust funds and

going into the law foundation is a support factor of

considerable importance to such matters as legal libraries and

legal aid. That suggestion will be given very serious

consideration.

In respect to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) who asks whether or not direct selling of property

outside of the province can proceed in view of the terms of

this bill, all I can say to the Hon. Member is that I'll speak

to a lawyer about that, try to get an opinion on the bill

(laughter) and have something to say, hopefully, by committee

stage.

In answer to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace): It

does appear to me that if a person intends to advertise these

out-of-the-province lots in a Vancouver paper, they've got to

do that through a licensed agency in the province because the

definition of agent is one who in any manner offers property

for sale, I would think that when the papers accept that kind

of advertisement, they've got to accept it from a properly

authorized agent in this province who is therefore responsible

for the misrepresentations which hopefully will not occur.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 29 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 526 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT ACT

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

bill, Mr. Speaker, it does two things: it abolishes the Department of Commercial

Transport as it has been heretofore organized, and the bill which I introduced

earlier today will, of course, incorporate the functions of the Department of

Commercial Transport as it has operated in the past.

The second thing the bill does is allow the licensing of

transient truck trailers and semi-trailers, and the collecting

of fees from them as they proceed through the Province of

British Columbia. This is being done on a reciprocal basis on

an ever-widening scale with the adjoining states and the

neighbouring provinces.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Minister

when closing the debate on this bill, having raised the matter

of commercial vehicles being used to tow trailers on the

highways, could indicate to what extent his department, under

this legislation, will deal with the circumstances which are

occurring today in this province where so-called house trailers

or mobile homes are being towed on our highways, and those same

mobile homes or house trailers are being used at the same time

to transport freight with the result that the carrying capacity

of those trailers is being grossly exceeded.

Now, the dolly wheels, the trailer facilities used to move

these mobile homes are not controlled, as I understand it, by

regulation; they are often very flimsy in nature and not

capable of supporting the loads they are bearing. We are

encountering on the highways of British Columbia these wide,

long loads, and when breakdowns occur in the trailer facility

then the serious consequences of damage to property and loss of

life and injury is surely going to befall many of our citizens

using our highways. It seems to be a shortcoming in this

particular respect, Mr. Minister.

As I read this bill I am not certain that it is covered in

this particular amendment and I would like to know whether or

not your department might consider bringing this forward for

further amendments later in committee.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would just like to ask one

question concerning this. The floater plates, I would assume,

are a little like an auto dealer's licence plates. How do we

cover the insurance portion of this which will come in March?

Is that a fair question at this time or should it wait until

the insurance is brought up?

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First, the last question. The last

question first.

Part of the issuing of the licence will be an insurance

consideration.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), I'll certainly check on

the matter of them carrying freight in the mobile homes that

are being transported. I was not aware that they were carrying

freight in them. I agree with him that it is a real problem on

our highways — the control of the transportation of mobile

homes.

In the Province of British Columbia we have a much narrower

limit than that allowed in other provinces, and I am under

continual pressure from people in and out of this province to

expand on that width. I want to say publicly that I have no

intention of allowing any wider trailers on the highways than

the existing 12 feet.

I suggest that if any of you have the opportunity, you

should take a look at the "Stop-Go" film, which is available in

the Department of Commercial Transport. I watched it a few

weeks ago before I went back east to meet with the other

Ministers of motor vehicles.

This is a camera mounted on a truck which takes a picture

every 80 feet. I have watched this camera and the film as it

followed a number of those mobile homes being transported on

the highways of this province; and it scared me silly, let me

tell you. And to think of that being enlarged to 14 feet in

this province…it's just not going to happen as long as I am

the Minister in charge of commercial transportation.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is a fairly simple

piece of legislation. As far as the law is concerned, the full

operation and import of the commercial transport Act is still

in full force and operation. So there is no doubt in my mind

that we have the legislative authority or power to control the

carrying of freight or the overloading of any wheels that may

be used to transport mobile homes in the Province of British

Columbia.

I have made a note of it and I'll check with my Deputy first

thing. With that I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid the debate has been closed. If

there's only a word or two you want to say on the subject, you

can only do so by leave of the House.

Leave granted.

[ Page 527 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just wanted to ask

the Minister if he has any comments regarding the pilot cars

used in conveying these mobile homes throughout British

Columbia. At the present time there is nothing in the

Motor-vehicle Act or commercial transport Act to license proper

pilot cars. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that these pilot cars should

be licensed, should be equipped with two-way radios and that we

should set some standards as to the proper lights they

carry.

You can rest assured that the mobile home industry is in its

infancy. There is going to be more and more of it. I would like

the Minister to give some consideration to the licensing of

proper pilot cars and lay out, in black and white, what

equipment they should have on them in regard to light-safety

measures, flares, et cetera in case of an accident, and also to

protect the, pilot car industry in British Columbia, because

at the present time pilot cars can come in from other

provinces.

Maybe you can take that into consideration; maybe the

Minister would take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and

give me his comments on it. Thank you for the opportunity

to….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question can be answered in

committee stage. The motion is that Bill 30 be read a second

time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 30 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr.

Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): This was

described earlier in the session as the second of three of the

most important pieces of legislation coming in to do with

agriculture in this session, a session that was billed as one

that would have very great importance in total for

agriculture.

For a long time now, provincial Ministers of Agriculture across the country

have been urging upon the federal government that there be some new federal-provincial

policy with respect to credit for farmers. For many years the Ministers of Agriculture

across the country have been meeting in conference every second year — moving

across the country. Since 1969, when they met in New Brunswick, they have been

urging that there be some study given to this — urging the federal government

— in considering any new credit programme or in existing credit programmes,

so that they do give some thought to involving the provinces so that the provinces

could come along with it — certainly not without cost — but involving the provinces

in planning the programme, in administering it and financing it.

This was put to the federal government in 1969 — to the

federal Minister of Agriculture. It was put again in 1971,

along with a much larger package of other proposals. It was put

again to the federal Minister of Agriculture at the Minister's

conference at Brudenelle, PEI, in the summer of '73. It was

discussed, certainly, by the B.C. Minister and the Premier at

the Calgary conference of premiers this summer. And it was

discussed again a couple of weeks ago when I travelled to

Ottawa, at the Prime Minister's invitation, to meet with other

Ministers of Agriculture from across the country to discuss

ways and means of helping to develop agriculture and to

increase food production in the country.

There was this unanimous request, at every one of these

meetings, a request supported by all of the Ministers of

Agriculture — and at these meetings all of the Ministers do

make a, point of attending — a request from all of them, a

request that was reflecting the need that existed in their own

provinces in spite of the many programmes that are offered by

the different provinces.

During the time between the spring and fall sessions of

1973, when the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture

travelled the province and, I think, under the term of reference

that dealt specifically with the problems of developing

agriculture in the Peace River, this question of credit for

farmers came up. It came up not only in the Peace River, but

came up wherever they met farmers everywhere in the

province.

There are credit systems of one kind and another available

to farmers. But there are so many different ones; the costs

vary from one plan to another; the items for which the

different programmes may be used vary from one plan to another.

There is a great deal of confusion — different costs, different

programmes, And in every instance — at least, every instance

when I heard the subject discussed — farmers would talk about

credit plans that are available in other provinces.

They never really seemed to know the details. They never

really knew the interest rate, except that they knew it was

low. They knew it was long term but they didn't know how long

term it was, and they didn't know to what use the various plans

could be put, But they did know that they were very

encompassing, wide-ranging, that the cost was low and the terms

were easy.

In other words, the far pastures looked greener when it came

to credit for farmers in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as the federal government was concerned,

[ Page 528 ]

from 1969 until 1973, there just seemed to be no recognition

of this need — certainly no response that was transmitted to

the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.

In the Calgary conference this summer the federal paper on

agriculture did recognize the need for some rationalization of

the various forms of credit available. Having recognized that

need in the paper, they then chose to ignore the need

completely by advancing not one single proposal, not one

programme of any kind, other than to say that there was some

consideration being given to changing the Farm Credit programme

so that it would be of particular assistance to young people

trying to get established in farming for the first time. But

there were no details of any kind.

At the conference in Ottawa a few weeks ago further

discussion of this was led by myself, again with no response

initially from the federal Minister of Agriculture — at least

until the third time of asking, I believe it was, at which time

we were all assured that the federal government is going to do

something about this: that it is going to be in the form of

changes to the Farm Credit Corporation lending programme; that

the amendments to the legislation for that corporation are

currently being prepared and that the provincial Ministers will

be made aware of the amendments before they are actually tabled

in the House, but with no information as to whether or not

there would be any provincial involvement in planning, in

administering, or financial involvement in the lending

programme itself, There was absolutely no indication as to what sort of

changes are being considered other than to say that there will

be changes, and a hint that the changes would be very important

for the agricultural industry.

B.C. has lagged very much behind the other provinces in

providing credit for farmers. The Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture, as I say, found this wherever they went. They kept

hearing about the better plans that are available in other

provinces.

The committee was made aware of the lending programmes in so

far as the departments had these. The Department of

Agriculture got information from all of the provinces as to

just what sort of lending programmes were available in the

different provinces. Some of them are very good, and some of

them not nearly as complete as, for example, the Province of

Manitoba, which went further than any other province in coming

up with a comprehensive lending programme to assist the farmers

in the agricultural industry.

One feature of the Alberta plan, while it didn't go as far as the Manitoba

plan in many areas, seemed to be different in that, as well as for strictly

agricultural pursuits it would lend money to improve the farm home, which of

course is very closely linked to agriculture. But in some of the plans lending

for that purpose would not be permitted.

As far as the interest is concerned, in spite of the stories

that we heard from the farmers as to how good the interest

rates were, in checking with the provinces concerned we found

out that the rate varied. In some cases the plans called for

interest rates of from 7 to 9 per cent; in other plans,

interest rates of 1 per cent above prime.

The Saskatchewan plan, a bit different again, is not as good

as the Manitoba plan from the point of view of the farmer, but

the Saskatchewan plan was deliberately designed to assist new

farmers. It was not meant to be one that would be available to

everybody farming in the community. They called it a farm-start

programme, and it was directed to assisting people wanting to

get established in the farming industry.

The Manitoba plan, as I said, is the best of all. I think in

only one area would our own Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture have found any question with respect to the

Manitoba plan, and that is that it limited the amount of loan

available. As I recall the report of the select standing

committee, they didn't propose that there be any specific

limit.

Ontario has several plans, each one of them geared to a

particular purpose, but in total, not presenting a complete

picture.

Nova Scotia, again, loans for specific purposes; Prince

Edward Island also, loans for specific purposes.

In B.C., farmers have had some access to credit for farming

purposes. There are the usual sorts of programmes that have

been available in all the other provinces, for example, Farm

Credit Corporation, which lends at rates that vary from time to

time. The rate is currently running at 7 per cent, which is a

very good rate compared to other forms of credit; the age

limit, limited to 45 years; loan maximum.

And then there are federal programmes all across the

country: the Farm Syndicate Credit Act , farm improvement loans,

the Veterans Land Act , and the small farm development

programme; all of these available in all other provinces.

As far as our own provincial government is concerned, the

only plan of direct lending or even of guaranteeing that has

been available up to this point, the only plan directed to

agriculture was formerly the Farmers' Land-clearing Assistance

Act , currently the Agricultural Land Development Act .

That has been the programme, a programme better in some ways

than any other plan in the country, in that it did provide

money at 4 per cent — and to the best of my knowledge there

isn't a single plan anywhere else in the country that does

provide 4 per cent money — but one that was limited as to its

use. The use was extended by this Legislature in the spring

session, but nevertheless, still limited; and the amount that

may be borrowed under this plan, again, limited to a maximum of

$15,000.

[ Page 529 ]

Recognizing the fact that B.C. has been behind the rest of

the country; recognizing the fact that we do feel now that

agriculture should be much more important in the eyes of

government, in the eyes of our total community than it has been

in the past; recognizing that we have fallen far behind in

producing food that we need for our own consumption, let alone

those areas of export where we could possibly contemplate

producing food for export; recognizing all of these

deficiencies, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was

asked to do this study, particularly with respect to the Peace

River where they came up with this programme. Certainly the

work of the standing committee, in identifying the need and in

making suggestions as to how the plan should be drawn up, was

invaluable.

The legislation before you I think goes further than that of

any other Canadian province. It also provides for the

possibility that the federal government, in presenting its

legislation, will be prepared to cooperate with the provinces.

We don't know what they're going to do, as I said earlier. We

have no idea at this point. But we hope that they will

recognize the need and recognize the importance of cooperating

so that there will not be duplication of effort, so there will

not be competition. For that reason we do include in the

legislation the provision for adjusting our proposals to meet

whatever requirements the federal government may have.

Beyond that, a credit programme; regulations still to be

regulation in the same way that they are under the Agricultural

Land Development Act , and yet legislation that I believe will

be more important to the farming industry in this province than

any other single piece of legislation in this session or for

many sessions in the past — and perhaps even into the

future.

A need that was expressed more often by farmers in the

community coming before the select standing committee, more

often by farmers writing to me and by their representatives in

making submissions to me is the need for some more rational way

of handling this question of farm credit. With that in mind,

believing that we have introduced very forward thinking with

this particular bill before us now, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of Bill 44.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want first of all to commend the Minister of

Agriculture for bringing in this bill. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I'm certainly glad he took the suggestions that I

made in the House last January when I outlined our agricultural

policy.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's more

than the previous government did.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly am in favour of this legislation.

As the Minister said, everywhere the agricultural committee

went in the province last year, this seemed to be one of the

problems. Of course as you know, Mr. Speaker, and as I know,

and as the whole House knows, this problem became much more

severe throughout the province after Bill 42 became law,

because the farmers could no longer term their agricultural

land as an asset, because it was denied and bank managers

throughout the province….

So as you bring in one piece of legislation, which the

government has done, it creates a situation; then you have to

bring in another piece of legislation which tries to solve the

problem.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we laid down in the

recommendations from the committee certain rules and

regulations that we would love to have seen in the bill itself

with regard to eligibility. And I want to say to the Minister

of Agriculture that this bill will only work if a great deal of

thought goes into the eligibility of those who are going to be

able to borrow the money through this bill, and also in the

terms on which the money is loaned to the farmers, or

prospective farmers.

The bill itself, insofar as the applications, is laid out

practically word for word with the recommendations of the

agricultural committee. In essence there is really nothing that

a farmer can't borrow money for as laid out in the bill, and

this is good. It certainly gives the Minister lots of range in

promoting the agricultural industry within the province.

The eligibility of those who are going to be able to borrow

the money is all-important. The terms of repayment are going to

be all-important, because if the terms are so stringent that

the farmer is not able to make his payments or is not able to

use the money for what he borrowed it for, there should perhaps

be in the regulations a period of maybe three to four years

where no payments in many cases have to be made.

It is also going to be all-important whom you loan the money

to, because we still haven't got a definition of a farmer,

other than the federal government one where a certain amount of

money is derived from the farm. There are many would-be farmers

and many professional people who are dabbling in farming, sort

of hobby farmers, who have the desire to go into full-time

farming, and I don't think we should forget about these people.

I think they should be taken into consideration.

And of course thirdly, Mr. Speaker, and probably most

important, will be the interest, rate which is going to be

charged the farmers. I know the regulations where the Minister

has the power to make certain adjustments on repayments and on

principal, but the interest rate is going to be — probably it

should have been the first one.

[ Page

530 ]

Now under the ALDA plan money can be borrowed at 4 per cent

for a specific purpose. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, will this

bill supercede the ALDA bill? Will it opt it out? Are we going

to have people on farms borrowing money at 4 per cent for

specific purposes and then going on to other purposes such as

building buildings and so forth which may be just as important?

Mr. Speaker, shouldn't the interest rate be the same?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we will maybe have to

increase the ALDA rate, but I'm just wondering about the

equability of the whole thing. I would like to see this and I

know the Minister would like to see this at the 4 per cent

rate. I'm sure his problem would be with the Minister of

Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there would be nothing

wrong with this.

It has been said in this House before and will be said in

this House again, that this is a way the rest of the people of

British Columbia — the consumers, the labourers and everybody

who has increased their status and their return on investment

and so forth during the past several years — could help out the

agricultural community and in an indirect way subsidize

agriculture in this province.

So with those comments and those suggestions to the

Minister, those warnings about eligibility terms and interest

rate, I would like to say that we're certainly going to support

the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too will support this bill.

The Minister in opening the debate indicated the reaction which

was received by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture as

it toured the province this year and he was right on. There was

no question, as we went about this province, that the one major

problem facing all people engaged in agriculture — and it

doesn't matter in what sphere — was the availability of

necessary capital in order to enable them to carry on the

business as it then was and to improve the kind of business

that they were doing or hoped to do.

It's true, as well, that while farmers were aware that

credit programmes were available in other jurisdictions, they

never seemed to know what the terms of the legislation were,

they never knew what the interest rates were, they never knew

what the eligibility provisions were.

Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking that the Minister would

bring in yet another bill where the farmers in the Province of

British Columbia still don't know what credit is going to be

available to them. They still don't know under the proposals in

this legislation how much they can borrow, who will be able to

borrow the money, how they \will have to repay it, and what the

interest rate will be.

Like the Farm Income Assurance Ac t, this bill has been conceived in haste and

I'm sure it will be born in agony. The trouble is that it will be the agony

of the agricultural community again which is to be experienced.

All the Minister is telling the farmers in the Province of

British Columbia with respect to this bill is: we recognize a

need for a lending programme; we recognize that there are some

purposes for which credit should be advanced. One of these days

we're going to get around to telling you how you can borrow,

how much you can borrow, how much you have to pay by way of

interest, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why, when we are as concerned as

we say we are about the economic plight of the farmer in

British Columbia, when we're talking about improving his income

position, when we recognize that year after year after year

farmers have had to borrow money at high interest rates, pay

those moneys back out of shrinking incomes, another year older

and deeper in debt — that's the farmers' lot — why, when we

recognize this, the government doesn't stop pussyfooting around

and make the hard decisions, if they are hard decisions, that

must be made.

State the interest rate. If it's going to be 4.5 per cent or

5 per cent or 1 per cent less than the farm credit rate — whatever the case may be — why not let the farmer know?

Mr. Speaker, it's all going to be done by regulation. Again,

once again, the cabinet is going to decide. Well, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Treasury

Board and the cabinet of this government had to make a decision

before they permitted the Minister to bring this bill before

the House. Why, when making that decision, didn't they say,

"Okay, let's say what the interest rate is going to be. Let's

specify who will be eligible in the sense of the income level

that a person who applies for the loan might have before

receiving the loan." Why leave it all to regulation?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his department must make the

determination at some time; why not now? What's the advantage

of waiting? Nothing that the Minister said in opening the

debate indicated that there was any problem about making the

decision. He hasn't indicated there was a problem. Then why not

go ahead and do it? If it's a subsidy, as the Hon. Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) says, let the government face

up to it. Let there be a subsidy with respect to lending to

farmers.

The Minister also indicated that one of the outstanding

features of similar legislation in the Province of Alberta was

that moneys could be borrowed by a farmer for the acquisition

or improvements to the family farm home. Is it in this

legislation? If it's not, why isn't it? You can purchase and

improve farm buildings. I don't know whether a farm home

qualifies as a farm building or not, but,

[ Page 531 ]

Mr. Speaker, why leave it in doubt? Is there any reason that

the farmer and his family should live in any poorer

surroundings than the people in the urban centres? —They can

borrow money to improve their homes; why not the farmer?

The farm home is as important to the operation of the farm

as is any other building. Why should we lend money to house the

cows but not to house the farmer's family? I can assure you,

Mr. Speaker, that one thing I learned as we toured the province

this year with the agricultural committee was that the farmer's

wife and the farmer's family were every bit as productive as

the cows and as necessary for the successful economic operation

as were the cows or any other livestock there might be on the

farm.

I know that the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley), coming from the constituency that he does, would not

disagree with that statement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we have to leave all these

things to regulation. They can always be changed. Regulations

can always be used to expand any of the necessary powers of the

Minister or the cabinet to make sure that such a credit

programme is successfully carried out.

But why, Mr. Speaker, when the farmers of British Columbia

write to their Members, as is happening right today, why when

we receive letters saying: "We understand there is going to be

a farm credit programme. We'd like to be able to apply. How

much can be borrow? What will the interest rates be?" Why can't

we tell them?

Why do we have to write back and say: "the government has

got a good idea but we're going to have to wait until some

decision is made behind the cabinet doors as to whether or not

this loan programme is going to be one which will be available

to you or not."

You know, this is the government which always talked about

sunshine, and so on. Let it shine in. It just doesn't happen.

It just doesn't happen. A little foggy.

When you look at the regulatory powers that are given to the

cabinet, Mr. Speaker, they are in a position again, as was the

case with the Farm Income Assurance Act , to make distinctions

subject to which a farm operator may apply for credit. What can

be more vague than that? They can prescribe terms and

conditions. It's as wide as the world, the things they can

do.

No matter what the Minister says about their intentions,

nonetheless the power is always there for the cabinet to make

deal, Mr. Speaker, that the farming community in British

Columbia is entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, when the farmer embarks on the beginning of the agricultural year,

when he sows his crop, when he breeds his cows, whatever activity starts off

He engages in his business forthrightly. Why, when we're dealing with farm credit,

can't this government do the same?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this bill places me in the same

position as the former speaker for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

and in the same position I took in speaking against the Farm

Income Assurance Act . I want to try to be consistent, which I

may say, in politics, is just about the hardest part.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker — and I don't wish to sound

philosophical — it really does surprise me, not just in

relation to this Minister's bills but in relation to, it seems,

almost all bills, that so often the legislation, which will

involve expenditures of large sums of money, is expressed in

what I would say is merely a form of good intent. It's like

saying you are in favour of the farmer.

We think that he should have an assured minimum income and

that he should be assured of credit, but beyond that the

government is not prepared to go in black and white in the

bill. As the former Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has

said so eloquently on many occasions, that's all very well, but

we're here to debate something more than good intentions. After

all's said and done, if I can draw an analogy….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the road to hell is paved with good

intentions.

I could make the analogy, Mr. Speaker, regarding the budget

speech. For example, when the government says it will raise or

lower taxes, or rather it will raise or reduce revenue, it

spells out in the budget and in the debate which follows how

that money will be raised, or how it will be spent. I just fail

to see why that very sensible, reasonable approach in the

budget speech itself should not be followed, at least to a

degree, in bills of this nature where, indeed, taxpayers' money

will be spent, admittedly not by the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Barrett) but certainly by, in this case, the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that on one point I have to be fair

and say that the Minister, in this bill at least has said that

the fund will not exceed $5 million. One of my main criticisms,

and this is where I am trying to be consistent, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Farm Income Assurance Act

just left the whole ballpark wide open. It could be $1, $10,

$100 or $1 billion, but at least in this bill the Minister is

learning a little bit.

I don't know whether this was put in as a sop to

[ Page 532 ]

the opposition or not, or perhaps the Minister was just

going a little way to try to weaken my argument, but apart from

section 3, which does state that $5 million will be the limit

of the moneys loaned, there is nothing else in the bill which

gives any kind of detail. I have to turn again to the same

criticism I offered on the Farm Income Assurance Act that the

Minister issues a press release giving all kinds of detail, Mr.

Speaker, which is not in the bill. Now, why should I, as an MLA

representing a riding in the province, sit and study the bill

and learn very little, and then read the Province of October 5

where Mr. Stupich told a news conference that $5 million would

be set aside and that the maximum limit for any borrower would

be $100,000?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We are often told that we can't believe

everything we read in the press, and I guess you have just

proved that point. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I don't like

getting press releases giving information which could quite

reasonably be included in the bill. I think, as I said earlier

in the other debate on the first farm bill, that one of the

most responsible jobs we have, in my view at least, is to make

sure that the taxpayers' dollar is spent wisely. For example,

the bill suggests that we hope the federal government will help

to share the losses and high-risk ventures which, right off the

bat, implies that this farm credit Act is going to be lending

money on some pretty slender pretext in which the risk of

losing the loan is considerable. I'm not, in effect,

criticizing that. It may be that some of these risks are well

worth taking, but the point is that we are loaning taxpayers'

money, and I see no reason why, if we are able to embark on

that philosophy with the good intention of helping the farmer,

we on the opposition side should not have more specific details

of the sums of money involved, the maximum available, the

interest rate. Again, to echo the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound, surely you should be able to put in the

bill that it will be 1 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 2 per cent or

what-have-you less than the prime lending rate.

It is all very well to talk about other forms of credit

being available but, as I also mentioned in an earlier debate,

prime loans at the bank are 10.75 per cent and I don't think

that too many farmers can borrow $50,000 or $100,000 at 10.75

per cent. So my

interpretation of this bill is that it will

make credit easier for the farmer to obtain at a lower interest

rate than presently exists.

Perhaps the Minister, in closing the debate, would mention if this is indeed

the basic principle behind the bill, which it seems to me it is. If that is

the case, why cannot we have specific details spelled out to say how much the

farmer can borrow, what the maximum will be, and what interest rate would be

applied to that loan?

I also would have to say with regard to this whole business

under sections of each of these bills entitled "regulations,

" you might almost just put it in one sentence and say

this gives the Minister the power to do anything he wants to

do. They just add up to the same thing. All you've done is

break it into four sections: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (

f) and

(g). But if you add (

a) to (

g) together, it really just says in

great big letters that the Minister may do what he chooses to

do in providing farm credit.

I know we keep repeating this like a worn-out gramophone

record, but I just think that maybe, Mr. Speaker, if we keep

chip, chip, chipping away, one day we may get some legislation

into this House where we will get some meat to chew upon

instead of having to repeat like a parrot, time after time

after time, the fact that this legislation is not responsible

legislation. It is simply an outline of good intention. I'm

even getting fed up hearing myself say it over and over again,

so I'll sit down.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I just want to

make a few brief comments. Before I do that I want to suggest

to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that

if he is so much in favour of having fixed interest rates set

into legislation, I wish he would send that message down to his

colleagues in Ottawa and have them do something about some of

the mortgage rates to deal with housing, because we are, in

that sense, subject to the vagaries of the marketplace. For

many citizens in his riding and mine and throughout Canada that

is as major a problem as interest rates for farmers is.

Mr. Speaker, I just want briefly to mention a couple of

things. I don't represent any farmers directly in my

constituency, but I have grown up on an orchard in the

Okanagan. My parents are in the farming business, and my

brother has just recently in the last couple of years purchased

a small farm at an incredibly high cost — and this,

incidentally, was prior to the Bill 42 legislation. Even though

it is an orchard that requires his full attendance in terms of

a full work year, he's forced, because of the credit situation,

to work out at least four, five or six months of the year in

another job in order to make enough money each year to pay back

the loan that he has been forced to take out in order to

purchase this orchard.

I realize I'm speaking in a fairly limited way because I'm

not familiar with the problems in the Peace River and I'm not

particularly familiar with the large cattle operations that do

exist in the province. I'm actually much more familiar with the

small orchard situation. But when we talked about loans that

are being used in terms of working capital for

[ Page

533 ]

one year, that's a very important feature. The Member for

West Vancouver talked about the annual picture. Mr. Speaker,

there is also a picture that exists for a period of 5, 6, and

sometimes for 10 years, This is particularly true in orcharding

and I presume it is true in the cattle business, where your

production doesn't come to fruition in the first year.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the legislation will allow loans to

be payable starting not the following year or at some fixed

period of time but rather tied to the return on the investment

itself. In other words, if money is spent to plant trees, that

money will then be paid back on the basis of when those trees

are in production. That is, I think, a very important

principle.

For too long farmers have had to go to the bank at the

beginning of the year for their annual operating costs, and

have, in effect, suffered a 6, 8 or 10 per cent reduction in

income for that year because of the interest charges on their

principle. That, Mr. Speaker, leads me to want to rise in this

debate because I feel that this bill, even though it is being

debated in a rather muted fashion and hasn't received a great

deal of publicity like some other pieces of legislation, is

really, in a sense, breaking new ground.

We can go, from this bill, with the attitude and the idea

and the policy that this is not setting up a bank, it is not

setting up another CMHC situation, but rather that it is, in

fact, a form of subsidization to farmers in British

Columbia.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the interest rates would be

set at a very low figure. I would hope that it could be less

than 3 or 4 per cent, or in that neighbourhood at least,

because to do otherwise is to make the money almost

meaningless. I would hope that money is available, as I

suggested earlier, not only for the annual working capital

requirements, not only for all the items that are listed in

section 2, but also for the problem of revenue being delayed

for 5 or 10 years in some cases.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I won't say more than that, other than to

say that I just want to re-emphasize the point that I hope that

we don't treat this fund as a loan fund in the traditional

banking sense, but rather that we treat it philosophically as a

form of subsidization to farmers in British Columbia. Thank

you.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I certainly couldn't let

this bill go through the House without making a few comments

concerning the agricultural industry in the Province of British

Columbia.

I agree with many of the remarks of the previous speakers that the type of

legislation that we have before us today is something that is overdue in the

Province of British Columbia. Perhaps that has been a result of the fact that

the farming community in the province does not represent a large percentage

of the population. Whatever the reason might be, we have needed this type of

legislation, for those people who wish to remain farmers, for some time.

I'm concerned that this bill requires another stage, which

will not be before us. It requires the regulations to be read

with the bill before we can actually visualize what the

Minister has in mind, if indeed he has a master plan in front

of him at the present time.

Certainly the farmers will, on the surface, greet the bill

with great acceptance because this is the type of legislation

that they've asked for. But they would like to know, I think,

at the same time, who will be considered a farmer. I think they

would like to know if the terms of credit will be available and

extended to young, new people coming into the farming

business.

It seems that the bill also includes phrases that have run

through many pieces of similar legislation since the NDP has

taken office — phrases such as, "the bill and the regulations," and "prescribing powers and duties of the Minister, a

corporation, branch, or agency established under clause (e), or

any other person, respecting farm credit," and so

on.

In other words, is it the intent of the Minister, when

setting up the regulations, to set up another Crown corporation

in the Province of British Columbia? Is it the intent of the

legislation for the government to go directly into the business

of farming in the Province of British Columbia?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

It would seem that this type of phrase is included in almost

every piece of legislation in which the government will be

either advancing money on a loan or making grants and, in my

opinion, it's the type of phrase that is too often included in

the legislation before us this year and in the past

session.

If the interest rate cannot be spelled out in the bill, at

least there should be an indication there of what the Minister

intends. Certainly, if you take the prime rate as expressed by

the chartered banks in Canada today as the interest rate, then

most farmers would be ill-advised to use the credit available

under this bill because of the simple fact that they cannot pay

8, 9 or 10 per cent interest on borrowed money at the return

that they have received in the past from the products that they

produce.

If people generally who are not farmers expect to have some

stability in the marketplace with regard to the purchase of

farm products, then I think that those same people must of

necessity allow the Minister of Agriculture to subsidize the

interest rate that will be charged to farmers borrowing money

through this Act. Certainly that subsidy will come out of the

collective revenue of the province and each and every taxpayer,

of course, would help to

[ Page 534 ]

subsidize that interest rate.

In my estimation, that is a fair way for people, who expect

to buy eggs, cheese, butter, milk, dairy products, or whatever

at a less-than-market-value price today, to participate in the

farming process that makes it possible for these products to be

delivered to the market.

I would hope that when this bill becomes operative you will

have at your disposal and in the Department of Agriculture

people who will have some expertise in giving advice to farmers

concerning their credit problems. Certainly, if we look at the

record of the IDB, we have cause for apprehension, because it

has been my experience that quite often the people who work for

IDB and were responsible for granting or refusing the loans did

not always exercise prudent judgment.

Quite often they approved loans to business enterprises at

interest rates that the enterprise could not afford to pay. As

a result they walked individuals or small companies into

financial distress and bankruptcy.

I would hope that not only will the bill provide financial

assistance at a reasonable interest rate for farmers, but that

it will give them advice on the matter of whether it is really

a good idea at that particular time to borrow money or not.

This can be done if you take a look at the return on farming

and project that into the future on the basis of at least a

slowly-escalating price for farm products.

Certainly the picture in farming today is brighter than it

has been for some time, but it will only remain bright if the

farmer is reimbursed in a manner that is comparable to people

working in every type of industry in the province. Too long

we've expected cheap food products, and we've expected the

farmer to work long hours — only to give him a very poor return

when he counted the profit and loss at the end of the year.

We support the concept of establishing an agency to provide

credit to farmers engaged In agriculture. I'm unhappy that the

bill does not fill out in more detail what you intend to do,

and that it is the intention of the Minister to prescribe that

by regulation.

I would hope that the Minister will move with great speed to

bring those regulations into the public eye so that the farmers

will know what you have in mind, how they'll go about

qualifying for a loan, the interest rates that they will pay

and the terms of repayment.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It's the kind

of bill that lets some sunshine into the farm community, in my view. It's surprising

to hear some of the people talking about setting the interest rates in the bill

when some of their colleagues have allowed bank interest rates to rise to unbelievable

levels in this country and have really done nothing about it.

HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: We've got a great many problems in the farming

community. One of the biggest problems, in my view, is that

young farmers find it so difficult to get farm property and get

on the land. Certainly in the areas that are nearest the urban

centres this is more pressing than anywhere else, because here

we have all the pressures of land sales from people who are

involved in other things than farming.

Recently in Delta there was a farm of some 130 acres that

was for sale. Young farmers wanted to buy it but couldn't

establish the credit and couldn't face the interest rates even

if they were able to establish the credit, We have many young

farmers who really want to continue farming. They work with

their parents on their farms until they reach adulthood, but

then they find there isn't sufficient work for the family on

that farm any longer.

I just want to tell you what happened to that farm in Delta.

That farm, while it was 130 acres, was actually a number of

parcels — an 80-acre parcel, another parcel of 12 acres and

another parcel of 30-odd acres. Because the young farmers who

would have liked to have bought the farm were unable to raise

the money, that farm was actually sold to the hobby farmers and

the people who really don't have any difficulty in raising the

money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speculators.

MR. LIDEN: So it is questionable now as to whether it will

really be a producing farm and something that remains in the

real agriculture community.

That's not the only kind of problem we have. I'm not sure

whether this bill will solve the other kind of problem, but

perhaps because it does leave some discretion to the Minister

it may be that we can handle some of these things.

There are many farmers now who are on short-term leases on

farm lands in the Delta area which are owned by various

development companies that have no intention of farming, and we

find that it is very, very difficult for the farmer to really

get the farm into production.

There is one case where the farm is owned by Western Realty.

It's leased by a farmer who has a one-year lease; he can't seem

to get a better lease than that. He lost the barn in a fire not

long ago, and he just can't raise the dough in order to build

another barn. He gets no cooperation from the realty company

that owns it. If some credit is available for those sorts of

situations then we may once again have that farm in a good

producing position and be part of

[ Page 535 ]

a real agriculture community.

In addition to that, certainly in our area, there is a great

cost in buying equipment due to the change of farming methods

and the mechanization that is taking place. The cost of

equipment is now fantastic. Certainly credits are needed for

that sort of thing, and I see that being available in this

bill.

I think that this is the kind of legislation that must go

with the Land Commission Act that was passed last spring, and

it's the kind of thing that is really going to keep farmland in

the agricultural community. There's no question in my mind that

the farmers that I've spoken to in Delta are very much in

support of this kind of legislation, and I am pleased to be

able to stand here and speak for them and say that we support

this bill.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I was fortunate enough this summer

to have been one of the members of the agriculture committee

and was able to tour the province. I saw the chaotic situation

that exists in this province today as far as the plight of

farmers is concerned, pertaining to their industry.

When I see this bill I am very pleased, of course, for some

of the things that are going to come out of it. You know, Mr.

Speaker, that I come from a constituency that is in the

frontier of the farming industry today, There are a

considerable number of farms being created and being actually

wrestled right out of the wild forest today. I want to tell the

Minister that in trying to develop a farm in the raw state of

land that we have in that area today it takes several years to

make farmland from the forest to the operating farm. In fact,

there are a considerable number of farmers and ranchers today

who are sort of at the halfway mark. They have spent three or

four years clearing several hundreds of acres of land, trying

to get their buildings raised — their barns and their homes — to get a herd of stock. In many cases they are going through

extreme hardships in getting these things done.

When you look at the

interpretation of a farmer in the Act,

for this farmer to be eligible for funds, especially for

clearing of land, he should have already a certain amount of

income — I think in one instance it's $1,600 from that farm.

These farmers sometimes have to wait three or four or five

years before they have any amount of income at all. When the

regulations are designed surely this must be considered,

especially in the northern sections of this province where

these people have to really go through a long period of time

before they do have enough income to qualify as a bona fide

farm operator.

I would imagine that there is no other riding in the province that has as much

available farmland that will be developed into farms in the very near future.

Driving along Highway 16 from Prince George through my riding going west, only

in the last five or six years people don't recognize the countryside because

of the number of farms that are being developed and the amount of land being

cleared.

It is an extreme hardship to some of these farmers trying to

get their farms developed, and I think the department should

consider this when they make the regulation or policy

pertaining to who a farm operator is. I think that if it takes

four years to get a farm going, then these people should have

funding for that period of time.

Section 2(2) of the bill gives the conditions that the money

should be lent for. I do have many examples in the riding where

farmers lack hydro power. When you go into a comparatively new

country you might see one farm and then drive several miles

before you see another farm. Naturally it's hard for these

people to get the hydro in because of the shortage of numbers

of people going to use that power. I think that if a farmer is

a mile off the highway he should be able to get hydro. If he is

developing his farm he needs all his going capital to put the

electrical installations in his buildings — his pump house

because just about everybody in that country has to pump water

and his accommodation. Yet in the regulations there is no

provision for hydro-electric. I know that B.C. Hydro does have

certain qualifications for people to obtain power, but if you

were a farmer and you were a mile off the main highway where

there was an existing power line, it would cost you minimum of

$4,000 to put that line in, and then you would have to pay a

considerable amount per month to have them hook you up to that

power line. So I feel that the department itself should really

look at this, because hydro-electric is a very important

facility on a farm.

With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and I am

certainly looking forward to it. Thank you very much.

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

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, most of the discussion has

been about material that we propose to include in the

regulations, and the concern seems to be expressed that this

material is not available in the actual legislation itself.

I agree with the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) that the legislation will be important only if the

eligibility and terms are set out in the regulations in a way

that makes the bill important. Certainly the experience with

ALDA would back up that appraisal. The experience there has

been very good. The drawdown on that money this year has been

very large because the eligibility was improved. It was

extended to include those who are just part-time farmers, as

opposed to the previous criteria where you had to be getting, I

believe the

[ Page 536 ]

wording was: a significant amount of your income from

agriculture. Now it's a limit of $1,600.

I have indicated the thinking of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-

Council at the time that was changed: in this particular day

and age, it's in the interests of the community as a whole to

extend ALDA so that it would be available to these people. That

situation might exist one day, one week, one month, one year,

but something might happen that would persuade the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that this need not always be so,

or that it might be appropriate in one part of the province and

not appropriate in another, or the use to which it is going to

be made might be appropriate in one part and not appropriate in

another. These are the sort of things we feel can best be

handled by regulation.

Those who were drafting the original B.C. land-clearing and

drainage Act, I am sure, felt the same way. By allowing this

sort of flexibility, if I may use that word, the government of

the day can adjust its programme to suit the needs not only of

the farming community but also of the community as a whole at

the time the regulations are being considered for change.

The definition of a farmer is lacking in this legislation.

As I say, it changed in the ALDA regulations; it may change

again. There are no immediate plans to change it. It is subject

to change, depending on the needs of the day.

The interest rate, of course, is very important. An interest

rate raises some complications. I am not saying this is why it

isn't in the legislation. Again, we chose to leave out interest

rate because there might be some particular reason for changing

it from time to time or for having different rates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Prime changes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If we related it to prime, that would be

useless. Some of the Members speaking on it have made that

point. It would be useless to the farming community. People

talk about getting money at prime rate. Farmers don't get money

at prime rate; they get it at so many points above prime rate.

So to relate it in any way at all to prime rate would not tell

the farmer from one day to the next just what he would be

paying in the way of an interest rate.

We would want, by regulation, to say specifically what the

rate is. It might be a rate that would change for long, medium

or short-term loans, or for specific purposes. It might be

different because this is a much-expanded programme over that

currently offered by ALDA. This brings me to the next question

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

that is, what will happen to ALDA ( Agricultural Land

Development Act ) with this new programme?

There are no plans at this time to do away with

ALDA. It is a specific programme with a very low rate of

interest, not that the new programme will have a high rate. It

is a specific rate right now of 4 per cent, it's for specific

purposes, and it has a maximum of $15,000. It may well be, in

keeping with what I said in first speaking on this Bill, that

to rationalize the programme we might eventually do away with

ALDA. At the present time there is no thinking of doing that

but we may find that ALDA will not be used because the new

programme will be so much more flexible, will allow for so many

more possibilities and will not have the same maximum.

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

raised the question that the criteria should be in legislation.

I have tried to say why we prefer to have them in regulation.

The farmers still don't know if it is good or not, that's true.

They won't know until they see the regulations whether or not

it applies to their own particular circumstance or to the needs

of their commodity group or to the needs of the whole farming

community. They won't know until they see the regulations.

On the other hand, they certainly know they are not bound to

come to the government for this assistance in any way at all.

If there's any way that a farmer, either privately or through

any of the recognized lending institutions, can get any better

deal, of course, he can go that route. I think it will not be

possible. I think it's clearly in line with the government's

present intention that this will be the best form of credit

available for farmers. If, because regulations are set and

regulations are not changed, or if, because of peculiar

circumstances, a farmer can get a better deal somewhere else,

then he is certainly welcome to go that route.

Should the rate relate to prime — and I believe the Hon.

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

example,: it might be 7 per cent — 7 per cent might be

considered in some areas to be a subsidy for farmers. It's not

too long ago that 7 per cent would have been considered an

unjust impost. You have to be able to move the rate.

Perhaps, with the Legislature meeting twice a year, if we

continue to meet twice a year, that would be often enough to

change it. That's conceivable. But we prefer to go the

regulation route, not just to set a rate that is appropriate

for the day that we set it, but as I said earlier, to set a

rate that may be appropriate to different areas and for

different reasons and for different terms. The farmer still has

the choice to take it or not take it if he thinks it's not good

or not to his own interest or to go elsewhere if he

prefers.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) seems to feel that

this government has a tendency to introduce legislation that

shows only good intent rather than specifics of the programme.

I suppose there does seem to be some tendency for that, in

[ Page 537 ]

part, because we want to be flexible; in part, because we

want to have the authority to improve these programmes from

time to time as we feel the need arises without waiting for a

special session of the Legislature; in part, because we feel it

is the role of the Legislature to adopt a programme more in

general principle rather than in specifics to indicate to the

government that they support the idea, in this instance, of a

rational farm credit programme in principle without getting

into the nitty-gritty of the details.

Another problem I noted when the Hon. Member was speaking

that I didn't mention previously: perhaps there might have to

be some consideration at some time to the cost of money to the

government, and the cost certainly changes. A lot of money

right now comes from our Canada Pension Plan money that comes

back to us from Ottawa. Certainly this is subject to very

frequent and sometimes very dramatic changes in the rate. So

whether or not we would be influenced by that, I'm not

suggesting at this moment. I'm just saying that there are a lot

of factors to be considered in setting an interest rate. With

that in mind, we prefer to leave the actual interest rate to

regulation. We believe also that this has worked quite

satisfactorily with respect to the ALDA programme.

I must apologize for the press release; I was working on it

at the same time as I was conducting a number of pieces of

legislation through the House. There were certainly a couple of

good questions that could be asked about the press release.

One that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) drew to

our attention was about sharing losses on high risk adventures.

Perhaps this should be better dealt with in committee, but what

we are referring to there is the authority that we propose to

have given to us under this legislation. In certain

circumstances, there might be discounts of principle or

interest. In a sense, they are losses; they are costs to the

government of embarking on certain new programmes where we

would, without getting into government farming, the fear

expressed by one Member — in a sense enter into a partnership

to that extent with a farmer to try something new and

different, something that has been tested experimentally

research-wise but has not actually been tested in the field.

While, in this press release, it has been suggested that they

are losses, the experience with farm lending generally, as far

as governments are concerned, is that there will not be losses

but there might be costs involved in embarking on new

programmes that would be demonstrated to farmers.

The other item, the limit of $100,000, was just picked up in

error in reviewing our own legislation and comparing it with

others. So I apologize for the one question and one error in

that press release.

MR. WALLACE: No limit has been set?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No limit has been set in the legislation.

I don't think there would be even in regulation unless it's a

different limit for different circumstances. The amount of

capitalization necessary for different types of farming differs

dramatically. It would seem to me that if we are going to enter

into a limit discussion, we have to relate that limit to the

particular farming enterprise we are talking about, again,

whether it's for purchase of land or for other assets.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

raised the question as to whether or not we would propose

postponing principal payments. I'm not sure; he may have meant

all payments. It is a feature of the ALDA programme that

principal payments may be postponed for three years. The case

he makes, where in some instances there will be no income from

the particular type of farming investment for a number of

years, is certainly a very good reason for postponing payments.

I am sure in a situation like that, the regulations would

provide for that situation.

As far as the interest rate, again, I would hope that it

would be low, but there is something else to consider. Nobody

really suggested today, with the exception of the Hon. Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), as to just exactly

what the interest rate should be. When the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay was comparing this with the farm income assurance plan

interest rate entered into that discussion too.

Then you were talking about cost of production and about

allowing interest on capital. Now in deciding what interest

rate we're going to allow on invested capital, should we have

that figure in mind at the time we're considering at what

interest rate we're going to lend? Now these are just

questions. I'm not answering; I'm just throwing them out to

show that it's not just a simple matter of picking a figure and

saying that this will be it.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) suggested

that this particular programme, while he might have wanted to

see more in the legislation, is overdue, perhaps because the

number of farmers in our total community is low in proportion

to the rest, and certainly that's one reason. But the fact that

it is overdue, that the government of today recognizes it as

overdue and is bringing it in, shows that this government is

prepared to enter into this kind of programme, even though the

farmers do represent a relatively small number of people in the

total community. We think they are doing an extremely important

job, that they need the encouragement of this legislation and

the regulations attendant thereto. They need the encouragement

that this will bring about and this government is prepared to

act in that direction.

What of our young, new people? Again we expect

[ Page 538 ]

there will be a lot of consideration given to the young, new

people by the federal government when they introduce their

programme. But in the meantime, our programme will be

available. I would hope it will not be slanted toward young,

new people. I hope it will be a programme that will assist

farmers in general without too much attention being paid to how

old they are.

And who will be a farmer? Again this question of part-time

farming enters into it, and I think we'll take the same

approach that we did on the ALDA — and I hope the Members from

both sides will join me in this — and that is we're thinking

not only of producing food, we're also thinking about the

agricultural way of life as something that should be preserved

in our community, even though people may be earning a

significant amount of their income from other sources. But,

still, development of agriculture is important and the

government should take a hand in helping to develop it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The family farm.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The family farm.

It's part of the programme that we started in the spring

session when we said that we're going to save the farmland, and

said then that we would introduce legislation in the fall

session to save the farmers. Certainly the programme to save

the farmers is attracting a lot less heat than the programme to

save the land, but it is every bit as important as the one to

save the land.

Do grants mean government farming? I think I've dealt with

that, in part at least. I'm not saying there won't be

government farming; there currently is some government farming,

and I think government farming has a place in our community.

Certainly there's no intention to extend this markedly nor to

withdraw, but there are no great plans for any changes there

and I've described how the system of grants would work.

Financial advice would have to be part of a programme, and

you'll note that the legislation calls not only for direct

lending but also for guaranteeing. In the case of guaranteeing,

when one goes to any one of the recognized lending agencies

there is financial advice available; not only is it available,

you have to accept it if you are going to be dealing with one

of the lending agencies.

Certainly the government also has accounting plans available

and would encourage the farmers to make use of this kind of

accounting assistance so the farmers themselves will know

whether they're embarking on something or whether they're

conducting their business in a way that will be worthwhile,

economically speaking.

The last remark that I noticed, again from the Hon. Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), is that we move with speed.

I think that's advice that I'm very happy to accept. Since being in office it's always

been my main ambition to move with speed. I don't know how long

I'm going to be here, but I want to see things happen while I'm

here, not after I'm gone. So, with legislative approval, I

assure you that the Department of Agriculture will move with

great speed to put into effect the provisions of this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to the Department of

Finance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I went to the Department of Finance, I

might have to be more responsible with the people's money.

I move second reading of Bill 44, Agricultural Credit Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 44 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

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

Mr. Speaker, in putting this bill forward today for second reading, I just want

to give a very short explanation.

The people in foundations that have to do with human tissue,

for example a cornea transplant or other gifts of human tissue,

feel that it's necessary that this whole question be given a

great deal more publicity. But they feel that you cannot give

it publicity at the time of the event because there would be

some embarrassment. People would be caught up in the whole

emotional aspect of, for example, knowing from whom they got

their cornea transplant or kidney transplant, or whatever.

The foundations do feel that it's essential that more people

become aware of the necessity for the gifts of human tissue. So

that in providing this kind of legislation, it gives the

foundations the opportunity, with the consent of the donor and

also the consent of the recipient, for publicity to be given or

at least the announcement of the name of a recipient or donor,

as they wish, can be made public. Now this would not be done,

nor could it be done, within a 30-day period, so that there can

be some anonymity as far as people knowing directly where they

got their transplant.

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is quite obvious and I

would answer any questions that might be put in moving second

reading.

[ Page 539 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill. I would

say that the Minister probably does not mean publicity so much

as he means public education. And I think we should try to draw

the distinction. I'm sure the bill does not intend to encourage

people to publicize this kind of event for the sake of

publicity but rather that there should be a greater awareness

in the public mind of the various tissues which can be

transplanted and, in other words, can be donated.

The one field in health care in the future, Mr. Speaker,

which has the most momentous potential for the human race, is

the whole question of donation of human tissue. This is a

matter which gets a great deal of discussion, as indeed it

should, in Reader's Digest and other popular magazines, because

once the whole question of tissue rejection is overcome, as I'm

certain it will be one day, the potential to transplant many

different tissues and different organs in the body to a donor

will mushroom dramatically.

While one need not tell the Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, about the costs of health care — he already knows all

about that — but the problems we're having right now will be

simply peanuts, if I could use the expression, compared to the

costs that will be involved when tissue transplantation becomes

much more widely available.

At the present time, I'm sure the Minister has in mind such

examples as he quoted, the tissue transplants of the cornea to

prevent or relieve blindness in certain cases, which at the

present time has a somewhat limited field, albeit a very

important one. But the whole question of heart transplants and

more readily available kidney transplants at the present time

takes a very important part of the budget of the Department of

Health.

Much of the dialysis expense, as the Minister is well aware,

and the artificial kidney costs, will of course be circumvented

or hopefully reduced when the time comes that kidney

transplantation can take place readily with a higher margin of

success than at the present time. I can't recall the precise

figures, but it's something like 40 per cent success at the

present time for transplants of kidney tissue.

One can't go into a long discussion of the whole principle

of transplanting of tissue, except simply to say that it holds

tremendous potential in the future.

Therefore, any bill which has the specific aim of educating

the public and making them aware of some of those techniques

and procedures which can be employed is well worthwhile,

provided it is not an attempt to pander to people's innate

search for publicity per se.

As long as I have not misunderstood the Minister's comments: that this is an

attempt to make the public aware through simple reporting of the facts rather

than any embroidered story of the dramatics of the actual transplantation process;

provided there's that very clear distinction that this bill is not designed

to encourage publicity-seeking as such, but simply to report the frequency of

these operations and the fact that they are technically capable of being done

and the benefits that are derived by the donor — this kind of information —

if this is the purpose of the bill, we most strongly support it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to express the

opposition view that we will support this bill. We assume that there must have

been many people who asked for this provision in order that the Health Minister

put it forward.

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

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, first I will assure the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that this has not been brought about

as a move toward a publicity stunt or to put the whole question

of tissue transplants into that kind of an arena. What it is

brought about for is to produce exactly what you said, Mr.

Member, and that is: public education in the whole area.

I might go on to say that we do recognize in this department

the real problem around tissue transplants — and that is the

escalating costs of the delivery of health care. I'm not

suggesting, by an stretch of the imagination, that there is

going to be a great deal of emphasis in this area other than,

you know, the real, true relief of illness, where it is

possible for us to make that kind of a contribution.

In answer to the Member for Langley's (Mr. McClelland'

s) question, yes it has. This was asked of us as opposed to having

been initiated in my department. The number of foundations and

groups that are involved directly in a voluntary way in these

areas were the people who initiated this whole question.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will move second reading of Bill

Motion approved.

Bill 43 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr.

Speaker.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL

PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces provisions

of two Acts, the Sheep Protection

[ Page 540 ]

Act and the Animals Act . There has been some concern in the

livestock community that the legislation we've had on the books

up to this time has not really done the job of protecting

domestic animals.

There is some thinking that we should go even much further

than the legislation before us at the moment, and some

thinking also that we try to include in this programme

protection for domestic animals not only from dogs, as the

legislation before us does provide, but that we should include

protection from predators — wild predators, that is — and

compensation for losses due to destruction caused by wild

predators.

At the present time, insofar as wild predators are

concerned, they come under the jurisdiction of the Fish and

Wildlife Branch. The Fish and Wildlife Branch has been made

very much aware of the feeling of the livestock owners in the

province over the years, as has, more particularly, very

recently the new Minister charged with that responsibility. He

too has become aware of their feelings.

There are some areas where there seem to have been

deficiencies in control of predators in the past. It does seem

logical, in consultation with him, that the control of wildlife

should be under the Minister responsible for wildlife — whether

they be predators or whether they be game animals.

So the legislation before us leaves out reference to

wildlife. It deals with protection of domestic animals, but is

concerned more with control of dogs than with wildlife, and it

provides for compensation for losses from destruction caused by

dogs.

It makes provision for assistance to the RCMP in the

employment of domestic animal protection officers, who may sell

dog licenses and who may seize dogs that are illegally running

at large.

It does put some onus on the livestock owners in that they

must show that they have taken reasonable measures to protect

their animals from the action of dogs before any claim for

losses will be paid.

It makes provision for more effective control of dogs that

are running at large than we previously had under the

provisions of the Animals Act .

It makes provision for grants from the fund, which may be

allowed by the Minister for associations which he deems to be

effective in promoting dog husbandry practices which lead to

the reduction of dog problems. And, as I say, it allows for

compensation for a much wider range of livestock than we

previously had where it was limited to sheep.

I With that explanation, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: When I first saw this piece of legislation, I was very,

very thrilled indeed. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy indeed, and I ran down to

my office and I said to myself, "I'm going to let those ranchers up in that

great Peace River country know that this great open government, this people's

government, is going to protect them…"

AN HON. MEMBER: …and their assets.

MR. PHILLIPS: "… and their assets."

I dialled the number and, as I'm listening, Mr. Speaker

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: …as I'm waiting for the ranchers in the

Peace River country to answer my phone, what happens, Mr.

Speaker? I start to read the legislation — and what do I find?

It's a Domestic Animal Protection Act , but what's it going to

protect the domestic animal from? — Snoopy! (Laughter.)

Lassie!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't want to

make light of….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How about "Droopy, Drippy and Droppy"?

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: But there are different people over here now.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I do not want to make light of the fact that

certain livestock in this province need protection from roving

dogs, but I do want to draw attention again to the fact that

livestock, domestic animals in this province, need protection

from the greatest predator of all — the wolf.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Two legs or four?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, I will talk in a moment. I'm going

to say that certainly the livestock industry, as you well know,

Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), also needs

protection, greater protection, I should say, than presently

exists, against two-legged predators.

I refer to the hunters of this province who go out into the

great out-of-doors in search of those lovely little deer and

moose who graze there in our great wild lands. They go out with

their guns to hide behind trees and shoot them up. But

sometimes they make a mistake and they shoot domestic animals.

Also there are the thieves in the province who we call

"rustlers," and our livestock and domestic animals need

protection from them.

Now if we are not going to protect our livestock

[ Page 541 ]

from these predators, both human and wild, we are going to

have to come to grips and reimburse the livestock owner, the

owner of domestic animals. We are going to have to reimburse

them from the public purse.

I say that if the people who live in Vancouver-Little

Mountain, who live in Vancouver south and who live in all of

the lower mainland, want to protect the wolves in the province,

then they are going to have to be prepared to pay the

price.

No longer, with the great shortage of food, no longer with

bringing in legislation to improve the livestock industry, no

longer with bringing in legislation to help the farmers of this

province — no longer can we go on to leave them unprotected

against the predators.

Mr. Speaker, it says in this piece of legislation that the

fund will provide compensation for owners of domestic animals

killed or injured by a dog. This is not the biggest problem,

Mr. Speaker — we have a new leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: I know, Mr. Speaker, that if there were other

people on that side of the House, this problem would be

resolved. I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich), and I want to say this sincerely, that I'm

acquainted with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) and I'm acquainted with the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who is sitting right here in front

of me. If you need someone to intercede on your behalf, to go

to these Ministers and to ask for assistance, I would certainly

be most willing to give you assistance in this area. Now, Mr.

Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, I'm getting them prepared — to produce some pictures in this House of cattle that have been

slaughtered by wolves. I want this province to see the gory

details and to realize, Mr. Speaker, that this must stop.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, would the Hon. Member try

to confine himself to the bill, which deals with domestic

animals and dogs?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill, which made me so

ghastly disappointed, as I said, says Domestic Animal

Protection Act , and I'm talking about the protection of

domestic animals. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this problem

is serious. In our area I had our cattlemen's association

prepare statistics from last summer's losses, and I want to

read them to the House, Mr. Speaker. These statistics were

presented to the Hon. Premier, with a copy of this letter to

the Minister, urging that legislation be brought in at this

sitting of the House. I want to read you the figures, and these

are not to be laughed at: "Losses reported by members of our association to date this

year are running 5 to 10 per cent on calves and up to 5 per

cent on mature stock." There are many people in my area and

many people in the Member for Omineca's (Mr. Kelly) riding who

are trying desperately to get into the cattle business. Mr.

Speaker, these men cannot survive with 5 to 10 per cent losses

from the predators.

There was a recommendation, Mr. Speaker, that went in from

the agricultural committee as to how this problem could be

solved. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to the House that this

recommendation received a great deal of soul searching by all

members on that committee before it was forwarded. The first

clause in that recommendation is that there should be

compensation from public funds for cattle and sheep losses, not

only in the Peace River district but throughout the province.

These losses may be from predators, hunters of rustlers with

claims to be approved initially by the nearest stockmen's

association.

Now, this is urgent, Mr. Speaker, and I'm waiting for this

legislation to come in. We have said that we want to promote

the agricultural industry, and in particular in the Peace River

area we would like many farmers to go out of grain and into

cattle. But these wolves are running wild in a predominantly

agricultural area. There is certainly lots of room in British

Columbia for wolves — many, many hundreds of thousands of

square miles in this province, Mr. Speaker, where there is no

agricultural activity whatsoever. I'm not going to get into the

reasons why the wolves are encroaching on agricultural land and

why they're standing on the perimeters of the community

pastures. I'm not going to go into those reasons; I'll let the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford)

decide for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you should go any further into

the matter because it's out of order. If you want to make an

amendment to the bill that's one thing and you can debate

wolves, but the question before the House is to do with

dogs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll say that I hope that in

bringing in this