1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

1379 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

On vote 26.

Ms. Brown — 1379

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1379

On vote 28.

Ms. Brown — 1379

Mr. Gardom — 1380

On vote 29.

Mrs. Jordan — 1380

Mr.Cocke — 1380

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1380

Mr. Bawlf — 1380

Mr. Cocke — 1381

Mrs. Jordan — 1381

Mr. Bawlf — 1383

Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 3.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1383

Mr. King — 1384

Mr. Macdonald — 1384

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1384

Mrs. Wallace — 1385

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1388

Mr.Cocke — 1389

Mr. Chabot — 1392

Mr. Levi — 1393

Mr. Shelford — 1395

Mr.Cocke — 1398

Mr. Kerster — 1398

Mr. Kempf — 1399

Mrs. Wallace — 1399

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 26; corporate, financial, and regulatory services, $5,510,076 — continued.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I raised a couple of

questions pertaining to the Landlord and Tenant Act under the

minister's office vote — vote 10 — and at that time, by an oversight,

he was unable...or in any event he did not respond to the questions

which I raised. I'm wondering whether he would grasp this opportunity

to deal with those questions at this time. To remind him, I'll very

quickly go over them.

One has to do with the fact that this legislation has no rules of

evidence and that, in fact, the outcome of each case is decided largely

by the officer who handles it. Apparently a number of tenants have

contacted me to tell me that this is a real hardship because it's

unpredictable. Depending on who they get as their officer, the decision

may come down in their favour or may not. The other point, Mr Chairman,

that the Attorney-General might take into account is the fact that the

legislation does not protect young families with children and that, in

fact, it is still possible for a landlord to refuse to rent

accommodation to a family simply because there are children involved.

The third issue which I raised, and which is really a very crucial

one in the city at this time and particularly in the Burrard

constituency, has to do with the business of eviction: the landlord

maintains that he's going to demolish the building and then, in fact,

doesn't demolish the building. The fourth and final one is the business

of the rentalsman's office being open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. only, five

days a week, which means that the working person really has no access

to the very excellent facilities of such an office.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Dealing with the rules of procedure,

Madam Member, when the legislation was introduced it's my specific recollection

that it was intended that the procedure be as flexible and as informal as possible.

With that in mind, the legislation was essentially silent as to rules of procedure.

Now dealing with that one point, this is a situation that is not unique or common

only to the office of the rentalsman. In pretty well all of the administrative

boards and tribunals in this province, there are not established rules of procedure.

There are really two views of thought upon it. There are differing views within

your own party and, I would say, differing views within the other three parties

in the House as to which is the appropriate route to take. I think that it would

perhaps be advisable in the case of this particular statute that we have at

least some greater experience as to whether or not it's better to move in

the flexible and the informal route as opposed to an established set of rules

of procedure and rules of evidence, because that's what was attempted to

be gotten away from.

The point that you have raised of family with children, I'm glad

you've drawn that to my attention. It's one that I'll look at as well

as the other three that you have mentioned. You mentioned landlords

demolishing their buildings and attempting to avoid the provisions of

the Act but, in fact, not demolishing and not being subject to penalty.

I would say that if it was a designed modus operandi, that is certainly

something that should be curtailed within the spirit of the existing

legislation. The office hours — I'll look into that as well.

Vote 26 approved.

Vote 27: land registry services, $4,031,498 — approved.

On vote 28: Rent Review Commission, $405,080.

MS. BROWN: Again, I would just like to draw something to the

attention of the Attorney-General. As you know, the Rent Review

Commission deals with cases filed under the Landlord and Tenant Act,

and I have before me a copy of a letter from one of the officers of the

Rent Review Commission to a tenant who was awarded an illegal rent

increase. This letter from Mrs. Sheehy informed the tenant that she

would have to continue paying this illegal rent increase until the

matter had been dealt with by the commission.

Now it just turns out that that completely contravenes

section 27 of

the Landlord and Tenant Act which says that an illegal increase is void

and not enforceable and, in fact, is against the law. So what we have

here, Mr. Attorney-General, is the Rent Review Commission not really

being aware of the Act that it is supposed to administer, and it is

giving advice that is contrary to a

section of the Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you bring that to their attention, you know?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 1380 ]

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. But, in fact, Mr. Minister, it was

brought to their attention and the Rent Review Commission debated this

issue. I am wondering whether you yourself would take a look at

section

27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and clarify this for your commission.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll look into that, but I would mention to

the hon. member that when she receives these specific cases, which she

seems to receive a great deal, if she would direct them — and she has

not done so — to the appropriate authority, I think that that would be

perhaps a more expeditious way of attending to the problem, as opposed

to, really, raising it cold in the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, a letter

did, in fact, go to the Rent Review Commission. But there is some

debate about

section 27 and its

interpretation, so we are calling on

you with your greater expertise and knowledge in this matter — and as

the chief law-enforcement officer, and superior knowledge, in fact, of

this bill — to cast your wisdom at the disposal of your own rent

commission to deal with it.

Vote 28 approved.

On vote 29: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,016,071.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I noticed

the big smile on the Attorney-General's face when he saw me rise in my

place. I don't wish to prolong this debate; I would pose but one

question and advise the hon. Attorney-General that there are over 300

ears in the Okanagan — not corn, but perhaps somewhat related, I hear,

from the debate — poised, waiting for your answer. I wonder if you're

prepared to give it this evening. I would refer, of course, to the 300

grape growers in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not this evening, Madame Member. I didn't quite get the substance of your question.

MRS. JORDAN: I can substantiate the point if you wish.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General is a very courageous person; he was asked a very

straightforward question by one of his colleagues in the back bench of

his party. All she asked, indirectly, was: do you support the grape

growers in this province in developing better species? If you do, will

you show that kind of support in the way they are treated by the

listing board of the LCB? Straightforward, Mr. Attorney-General; how

about standing up there and letting the world know?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think the fairest response to the lady

member, and also to the member for New Westminster, is to send the

member for New Westminster a copy of what I said in Hansard

a day or two ago. The hon. lady member was not here, and I'm happy to

send one to her as well. It's not the intention, as I said before, of

this government to hinder or harm the grape-growing industry in the

Okanagan, nor is it the intention of this government to see that the

consumer in the province of British Columbia does not receive adequate

selection on the shelf.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

resurrect the great wine debate either, but I can't allow this matter

to pass without a couple of comments.

I might say that I expect I will find myself continuing to be on the

side of protecting the grape growers of British Columbia, but I have to

give some consideration to the comments and the feelings raised by

another hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver South. I'll just draw

your attention, perhaps, to a few statistics whereby the solution, the

conciliation, of these two points of view might lie.

The total sales for the liquor administration, under the liquor Act,

I understand, is $388 million. To put this in perspective in terms of

wine sales, there was $52 million last year in wine sales. The revenue

profit generated I understand to be $22,800,000.

Now this compares with, by their own account — that being the

Association of British Columbia Grape Growers — a cash crop value of

wine grapes amounting to about $4 million a year. The grape growers are

already being subsidized in a sense, indirectly at least, through the

preferential treatment of B.C. wines in terms of pricing. The question

is: is that the right form of subsidy? Or, to put it another way, how

should this subsidy occur?

In this connection it is interesting to note that the profit on

imported wines is 52 per cent versus a profit on B.C. wines of 38 per

cent. This means that at today's sales levels an increase of 1 per cent

in the share of the market which is held by the imported wines improves

the profits to the liquor branch by $75,000. Now that $75,000, in my

view, should be available to assist the wine growers in upgrading their

quality of grapes. That in turn will very materially assist the B.C.

wine industry because by upgrading their grapes which are required to

be used by the B.C. wineries, we will undoubtedly open up new doors or

new markets for B.C. wines.

[ Page 1381 ]

Now to say that an increase in the number of imported wines which

will be listed in British Columbia would contribute to a shift in the

share of the market in favour of those imported wines — I think we

would all agree that this is true. But the shift has a quantifiable

value to the government, which value could go back to the local wine

and grape industries. A shift of about 15 per cent, which is what some

people predicted as a result of more imported wines being available,

would produce about $1 million a year, or roughly 25 per cent of the

total cash value annually of the wine-grape crop in British Columbia

today.

At the same time, it doesn't necessarily follow that a shift in the

share of the market in favour of imported wines will result in lower

sales for B.C. wineries. What is at issue there is how fast those sales

will increase, not whether they are going to be reduced. My feeling is

that we can take a short-run view and say that the status quo works and

probably do the wine industry of British Columbia more harm than good.

I feel that we should move towards a more competitive environment —

atmosphere — with more imported wines, but use the additional profits

to the liquor branch to subsidize B.C. grape growers in the

introduction of better grapes and thereby bring about a healthier wine

industry, a better quality of wine in British Columbia and with the

long-term view that we are going to open up new markets and really

foster a healthy industry in this province rather than keep it tucked

away in a shoe box. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not one to want to

prolong debate but, you know, listening to the information that we were

given by the member for Victoria motivates me to stand up just for a

couple of moments and indicate to him that there has been one heck of

an improvement — an awful improvement — in wine in this province. There

has been a tremendous improvement. The member for Langley laughs but

his area isn't dependent upon a very important industry that I feel is

growing. Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Even if they make wine from old shoes, Mr.

Member...and I happen to know that, too. But that's not to suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that we shouldn't be looking at the very best way of

supporting.... Mr. Chairman, I resent the word "subsidization" in this

regard. I don't feel they are being subsidized in being treated in a

different way than those outside of the country. There's no question

about it. For instance, they've been making wine for many, many years.

There's no question about it that many of the European countries have

been making wine for a long time. But when you think of the improvement

that has occurred here in the last 15 years or so, then we surely

mustn't be off track in treating our own industry just a little bit

better than what we would treat an industry from outside. We have given

away our economy in so many ways that, as far as I am concerned, a

little bit of protection is about due at home.

The hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) tried his best to

condemn, and for that matter annihilate, the wine industry in this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. COCKE: His very best, but his best wasn't good enough. We

hope that his running mate — that guy who's so easily influenced, if

you consider the fact that he jumps at the behest of his colleagues —

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General, will not go for the arguments, will

not buy the arguments, about putting everybody on an equal footing.

Because if you do, this brand new burgeoning industry will fail because

there's a very rich wine industry that's out there ready to carve up

this market, just like that! I just wanted to take you back to the fact

that we have improved a great deal. So, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr.

Bawlf), I hope that you'll rethink your advice to the Attorney-General.

I hope you'll rethink it as early as tonight.

MRS. JORDAN: I really didn't wish to prolong this debate and,

Mr. Attorney-General, my heart bleeds to have to now mention a few

words. It bleeds Canadian Duck.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): She never did like you.

MRS. JORDAN: But there's obviously a great misunderstanding

of this whole situation. I don't intend to go into the figures, some of

which have been very ably quoted by my colleagues, but I would suggest,

when the Attorney-General talks about adequate selection for the palate

of the wine consumer in British Columbia, that he must bear in mind

that the grape producer of this province also has a palate, rather a

peculiar palate. It wants to eat, and if we cater to this sophisticated

palate — and I must question that because we are talking about

under-$3-a-bottle wine — then we are saying to ourselves that we are

willing to sell down the tube jobs, the investment, the capital

investment, of over 300 families in this province, plus the birth of an

industry that was encouraged, basically, by every member of this House.

I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that this is not a decision

that can be made on the basis of facts and figures. This is a political

decision. This is an

[ Page 1382 ]

environmental decision, and this is a decision of

the priorities of the society in which we live, rather an unusual

society because, while we're talking about increasing the importation

of $3-and-under-a-bottle wines, we have a society where people earning

$6 an hour, $7 an hour and $10 an hour, plus fringe benefits, have

said: "We want agricultural land. We want our farmers frozen on the

land. We want an agricultural industry, but we want to buy our

groceries across the border where they are cheaper."

Let me remind hon. members in this House that

whereas most of our

labour in this province — and our white collar workers and certainly

our management, our teachers, our doctors, our lawyers — are earning

anywhere from $6, $8 and $10 up an hour, the income assurance

programme, which is not a subsidy programme....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The programme — I'll explain in a minute —

classes the labour of the producer — and in this instance it would be,

if it would apply, which it won't, the grape producer — at $4 an hour.

And he has no capital investment in his land; that is free as anyone

else in this province. Every member in this House, including the hon.

Attorney-General, in his home property has more freedom in the use of

his land and the sale of his land and the capital return on his land

than one single grape producer in this province.

When we talk about imported wine.... And I believe that one member

of our party, and a most honoured colleague whom I enjoy, talked about

all the foreign objects that were in our wines. Has he never heard of

the French Bordeaux wines, where I understand that years of tradition

were diluted by the fact that the wine itself was diluted?

We are talking about a unique situation and a unique product. It's a

perishable product. There is a lead time of nearly five years from the

time that that individual, be it man or woman, plants a grape vine,

root in the soil, until they can look to fruition of a crop. Five

years! How many of us in this House are willing to invest our money for

five years with no returns?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. JORDAN: Not even a capital return, let alone an interest

return. And why are they doing it? They're doing it because the people

of this province have said that they want agricultural land preserved.

We say if the people of this province want agricultural land preserved

then they will preserve the farmer, and the farmer will not be a

second-class citizen in this province. It has been suggested that

income assurance could be applied for the grape grower.

Let me advise the House that income assurance is not a subsidy

programme. It's a guaranteed source of revenue only up to the cost of

production on the commodities that are sold. So if there is no market

for our grapes in this province, then income assurance, even if the

government wished to make it apply, could not apply to the grape

producer, because last year we had an excess of grapes that were not

purchased and this year we are looking at an even greater crop than in

the past. So you are suggesting a programme that simply is not

applicable in this instance.

This industry is in its infancy. I'm not a connoisseur of wine but I

enjoy a good wine — a good beer, too. I believe that the consumer does

have the right to choice, but they already have, if my figures are

correct, seven imported red wines at $3 and under a bottle, 13 imported

white wines at $3 a bottle and under, and 21 red wines between $3 and

$4. Surely for even the most discriminating $3-and-under palate, that

is a large enough selection to defend their right of choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not bad.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd say it's not bad. I would say that it is still loaded in favour of the selective palate rather than our grape producers.

MR. LAUK: Except for Pat McGeer.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think he's a pretty good guy — he just

needs a little education in palates. When we're talking on this

business of selective palates, it is my understanding that those who

are generally the connoisseurs of wine are those who have travelled

recently. They are known, I think, as the Hilton Hoppers; they go from

jet to jet. They read the menus, they read the columns in the papers

and they sample the wines thusly. I am advised that most Europeans, who

are truly the wine connoisseurs now in this country, make their own

wines from their own grapes, frequently the stock of which is imported

from Europe.

Mr. Chairman, I would advise you that the grape-growing industry is not perfect

and they are not saints, but they are diligent pioneers in a new field in this

province. They have policed their own industry very strongly. I would cite,

for example, that the Bock grape was one of the original grapes introduced in

British Columbia because it was hardy and because it was a heavy producer, but

it proved not to be a suitable grape for wine-making. The grape growers themselves,

recognizing that they have to have a five-year lead time, plus the fact that

they are subject to frosts and other unknown weather conditions, did in fact

say to themselves: "We must take out this stock and replace it." They

have improved greatly the

[ Page 1383 ]

quality of the grapes produced in British Columbia

without subsidy, on their own, with their own initiative, with their

own daring.

Mr. Chairman, we are a government committed to people. We are a

government committed to the preservation of our land to its highest

use. We are a government concerning itself in the throne speech with an

economy that will create jobs in order that people can be independent

in an economic climate which will allow them to exert their own

initiative. The grape producers of this province ask nothing more and

nothing less. They don't want subsidies in any form. They have never

applied for income assurance, even if they had thought it would apply.

In all sense of fairness, in all sense of responsibility, I would

suggest to the hon. Attorney-General that in all sense of reason there

is no choice but to give this fledgling industry the little more time

that it does need, and that the selective palate in this province does

have a very wide selection. They are consumers. They have a

responsibility to the preservation of our environment and our land and

our people, just as everyone else does.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify my earlier remarks

by way of response to the preceding speakers. It is interesting to note the

concern for the use of about a 10 per cent annual increase in grapes produced

in this province for wine when you consider the sales of liquor — and I expect

wines continue to be pretty much the same proportion throughout the years. The

profits to the government from the sale of liquor in this province have increased

from $35 million in 1965 to $155 million in 1977 projected, an increase of 340

per cent in a 12-year period.

I am very much concerned with and interested in the well-being of

the small entrepreneurs, the hard-working entrepreneurs of this

province. I have experienced what it is to invest money for an extended

period without immediate prospect of return.

However, I feel that the position of the wine maker and the grape

grower of this province is not endangered, providing some modest

safeguards are introduced and those safeguards underwritten by the

increased profit to the government from the sale of imported wines. I

think that those safeguards could also be extended to assistance for

the wine growers to accelerate their programme to improve their wines,

and to accelerate it so we're not merely talking about some kind of

comparable quality in the British Columbia context, but so we're

talking about moving on to a new threshold, an industry which is

exporting substantially — something which we are not doing at present.

So I feel very much that the question of the grape growers of

British Columbia, British Columbia wineries, is not a question of

whether they will be able to sustain levels of activity which they have

achieved; it is a question of how their growth is nurtured and it's a

question of how quickly they will grow. I feel we can be assured that

this government will very much assist in that regard and that the

question of increasing the supply of imported wines in British Columbia

need not interfere with that, if handled carefully.

Vote 29 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions on this very important vote, I'd be most happy to answer them.

MR. LAUK: Tell us what you know about agriculture!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We haven't got that long, Mr. Member.

(Laughter.) But I know some of the members opposite are waiting

anxiously to ask some questions about this very important industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps before we go into debate

on vote 3 this would be an opportune time to speak with the members of

the House and acquaint them with the procedures that would assist the

Chair a great deal in maintaining order in the House.

The first one has to do with standing order 36 which clearly spells

out the procedure of debate in which members should address the Chair.

It has occurred to the Chair, in conversation with some of the hon.

members recently, that there is not universal knowledge as to what

addressing the Chair really means. It does not mean that you say "Mr.

Chairman" or "Mr. Speaker" betimes. To address the Chair means that

your debate is directed to the Chair, and ministers to whom you may

wish to speak indirectly should not be referred to in the second person

singular, being "you", but should be referred to as "he" or "him", in

the third person.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or "it" if you prefer. So addressing the Chair

is to avoid the second person singular. It will assist the Chair a

great deal in maintaining order because it takes the accusative tone

out of the voice whenever the second person singular is avoided.

Secondly, it might assist the Chair a great deal if hon. members would wait with their debate until

[ Page 1384 ]

they are recognized by the Chair.

Now I understand that when a minister is as eager to give answers as

the last minister was, it is sometimes hard to remember to wait to be

identified before the speech begins. However, Hansard has no way of

knowing whose microphone to turn up until the member is identified. I'm

sure hon. members will remember this. It will assist me a great deal.

Now to vote 3; shall vote 3 pass?

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, this

is a dual portfolio we have before us at the moment, the Minister of

Agriculture and Minister of Economic Development. The minister

neglected to say precisely how the government proposes to proceed with

the debate on these two departments which fall under the ambit of his

jurisdiction.

I wonder if he'd care to inform the House what procedure he proposes

so the opposition might know whether under the minister's vote on the

Agriculture department we discuss simply those matters related to

Agriculture, or whether that office vote also embraces the Department

of Economic Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: By way of explanation, would you please

discuss the Department of Agriculture under the Agriculture vote; next

coming up will be vote 36, which is my salary vote under Economic

Development. Under Economic Development you can discuss anything under

Economic Development, the railway....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I understood that that was the agreement that was made.

MR. LAUK: It'll take a week for one, and two weeks for the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Thank you for that explanation.

MR. KING: If I could seek some more clarification here, I did

talk to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) outside the

House and I understood her — perhaps I was mistaken — to indicate that

both departments would be dealt with under one office vote. But

provided the minister assures us that the latitude will be extended to

the opposition to discuss economic affairs under the next vote with the

full latitude and the Chair's agreement that that extends the

traditional perimeters of debate to the office vote on Economic

Development, fair enough.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, unless maybe I misunderstood.

But that's my feeling and I will be quite happy under Agriculture to

defend anything under Agriculture. The next vote will by my salary vote

under Economic Development, at which time you will have a latitude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Good.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, getting

back to the...and I am speaking to you; I am not speaking to the

minister. But getting back to the great debate, I am wondering why he

doesn't — I am referring, of course, to the Minister of Agriculture, in

speaking to you — (laughter) do something about improving the quality

of vinous grapes in the province of British Columbia. He's been in

office now almost five months and he's heard in the House the criticism

about the quality of our grapes in terms of wine-producing. He comes

running to the Attorney-General's department and wants to sell his

whole crop to the liquor administration branch. It seems to me that

this is the minister on whom falls the burden of whether or not we have

a wine industry in this province.

MR. KING: That minister!

MR. MACDONALD: That minister. So I don't think that the great

debate should finish quite as quickly as it seems likely to do, Mr.

Chairman, speaking to you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to

speak about the wine industry in the province of British Columbia. Not

only is it an agricultural industry but also it is an industry of great

magnitude and it's an industry — one of our agricultural industries —

that has probably more add-on value for the end product than any

agricultural product we produce. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

I believe our great wine industry is progressing every year, as has

already been said in this House. The quality of our wine is increasing.

And I'm all for that.

I want to tell you that not only is the value of the wine increasing

but the quality of the grapes is increasing. I also want to explain

something else, Mr. Chairman. In those countries that have been in the

wine-producing industry for so many years, they can produce wine much

more cheaply than we can produce it in British Columbia because, like

any other industry, they have their plants — I mean their physical

plants and their grape plants — and they are written off, so certainly

they can produce. But I want to tell you that all is not so cosy in the

world wine industry because in some of these countries, in some of

these plants, they seem to be able to ship about

[ Page 1385 ]

eight years' supply of wine from one year's growth

of grapes. So all is not so well in the world wine industry. I want to

tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we don't have that here in the province of

British Columbia...

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and I think, Mr. Chairman, that

decisions will be made. We certainly want to satisfy the palates of

British Columbians. I want to tell you that that great wine industry is

one industry in British Columbia that doesn't receive...I won't call it

a subsidy; I'll say an incentive from the public purse. They support

themselves. They are growing and they employ people and I look forward

to the great day when, through the Department of Economic Development,

we can go out of British Columbia and as our wine industry grows, we

will be able to sell that great product on the world market. I look

forward to that day, and they'll certainly have the support of the

Department of Economic Development.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have

been aware for some time that the Minister of Agriculture doubles for

the Minister of Economic Development, but I was not aware before that

he also doubles for the Attorney-General. Now that we are finished with

the Attorney-General's department, perhaps we can move on to

Agriculture.

I certainly endorse the feelings that have been expressed about the

grape growers and I did make some mention of it earlier in the House.

The grape growers are but one of many groups of agricultural producers

in British Columbia and tonight I want to get into some of the other

aspects of the farming community in British Columbia. It's interesting

to note, Mr. Chairman, that in the spring session of 1972 the

agricultural estimates represented 0.5 per cent of the total budget

brought down in 1972.

In the year just passed, the agricultural estimates represented some

11 per cent of the total budget. I suggest that those figures, Mr.

Chairman, indicate very clearly the advances that have been made in

agriculture over the past three and a half years.

But it is somewhat disconcerting to note that the estimates for this

current year are down — not by just $2 million, really, but down if you

consider a 10 per cent inflationary factor, down a total of some $8

million in actual buying power.

Mr. Chairman, during those years that I have spoken about when we

did increase from one-half of 1 per cent to 1.1 per cent, I would like

to review what this has meant to the agricultural industry in British

Columbia. I would like to pose to this House the question, and

particularly to the minister, whether or not the agricultural community

in British Columbia can stand a cutback in funding — because that is

what it is. It is a cutback.

In the Department of Health, where we had a sizeable increase, they

are still just not even able to keep up to inflation in that

department. The same is true in the Department of Education, where mill

rates are being increased locally in order to keep up with the cost of

inflation. In those departments there were sizeable increases. In this

department there is a decrease, and I suggest that we are asking the

farmers to face up to the rising costs of production and to accept

declining incomes.

What do the farmers think about this, Mr. Chairman? I have here a

quote from The Province of May 1. This is a quote from Ralph Baratello,

the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He says:

"We have trouble in meeting with the minister, and there

have been statements by the Agriculture department staff members that indicate

that there will be watering down in the income assurance scheme. We have many

people in agriculture wondering what is going on."

Another quote, Mr. Speaker, is from Country Life , which is the

official organ of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I think you are

all aware, Mr. Chairman, that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

represents by far the largest group of agricultural producers in

British Columbia. Again, Ralph Baratello expresses disappointment that

payments to farmers in the budget were not increased, especially for

agricultural credit and farm income insurance.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

It's not just the farmers that are upset, Mr. Chairman. Other people

within our community are concerned. This is an

article written by

Malcolm Turnbull, who is the correspondent for agriculture from B.C.:

"It now appears that what happened to agriculture

between 1972 and 1975 is past history and due for some erosion. Not

only have there been constant complaints for the last month that B.C.'s

fourth industry does not have a full-time Minister of Agriculture, but

now there is the provincial budget. While the budgets for health,

education and social welfare increased, agriculture decreased by almost

$2 million."

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that these kinds of reductions in the

budgetary money provided for the rural sector of British Columbia are

quite without justification. I wonder what the rationale is behind what

seems to be this callous attitude of the government.

Who is the spokesman for the Department of

[ Page 1386 ]

Agriculture, Mr. Chairman? The president of the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture maintains he has had difficulty meeting

with the minister. And yet, very strangely, from a paperback on the

prairie I find that the Ontario Institute of Agrologists have been

advised all about what the farm programme is going to be here in

British Columbia — not by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman,

but by the director of the Department of Agricultural Services, I

believe it is, a Mr. Ian Carne. This is what he tells the farmers back

in Ontario:

"The negative aspects of the B.C. plans become

apparent during the question and answer period here after Ian Carne,

director of general services for the B.C. Department of Agriculture

spoke to the 17th Annual Institute of Agrologists.

"Mr. Carne said there was evidence that farmers have

taken part of the income from the subsidies and used it to bid the

price of farmland and production quotas higher."

He goes on later to say that there is a real concern in B.C. that

farmers will farm the farm programme, not their farms. There is also

concern that farmers are going to plough profits back into increased

capital and technology which will tend to reduce their options and

switch producing to different commodity if the marketplace indicates it

wants such a switch. Mr. Carne said it's too early to judge the

longer-term merits or the faults of the programme, but he said there's

renewed optimism among farmers, and so on. Then he goes on to say that

the income protection was the prize farmers were awarded to balance the

penalty of the loss of their rights to sell their farmland. I suggest

that if this is the kind of thinking that really is representative of

the Department of Agriculture, then the minister should tell the

farmers of this province, but he should not let one of his employees,

the director of general services, go out and tell the Ontario

agrologists and let it filter back that that is the philosophy that is

behind the government's agricultural policy, that that is the ideology

that is being reflected in these estimates. We have no other choice but

to think that that is the ideology, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the

minister, later when he speaks on these estimates, that he advise us

whether this is the case and, if not, if he tells us what the

difference is.

We have heard a lot of things from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture lately. They are very concerned because they are hearing

and getting this kind of an impression from the minister. The Social

Credit government, they say, is not interested in the Farm Income

Assurance Programme, and this could lead to a food shortage. This is

again Baratello:

" 'From conversations I hear, some farmers feel they

are on the verge of getting out of agriculture,' he said. Later in this

same interview in Vancouver, the Agriculture minister, Don Phillips, said in

an interview that Baratello's statement about food shortage is an irresponsible

scare tactic."

Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

I have here another quotation. This one is from the president of

John Deere speaking in Hamilton to the Canadian Club. He says: "The

increasing world population will mean the agricultural industry will

have difficulty in meeting future needs for food, particularly in

grains. By the year 2000, the world's population is expected to reach

seven billion; it's now four billion." He urged governments to step up

scientific research because no major scientific developments have

occurred in production over the past 13 years.

There are many, many studies that have been made that indicate that

we are going to be facing a food shortage, and this is difficult to

face up to in a time of surplus, Mr. Chairman. It's difficult to

accept, when we have a surplus of food here in Canada at this point in

time, that before too many years we can very well be facing a shortage.

It's difficult in that era of surplus to gear for a shortage. I would

suggest that the thrust of the agricultural programmes over the past

three and a half years has been to keep agriculture a viable industry

to prevent the erosion of the rural population — the farm community —

into the city, to stop that movement of rural population to the urban

centres.

I'm sure that all the members of this House, Mr. Chairman, are aware

of the kind of problems that are created by the already overburdened

cities. If you upset the balance, which has for so long been

established here in British Columbia and in Canada where our rural

community is a viable and functioning entity, by economic pressure

forcing those people, as has been done over the past many years.... But

now, here in B.C., that trend has stopped. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, to the minister, that this is a trend that must be maintained

to keep those rural communities viable.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to review what some of the

programmes have accomplished over the past two and a half years and

what the economic position of the farmer in B.C. is today. Let's just,

for a first example, look at the comparison of cash receipts to the

farm community in British Columbia, just comparative for the last two

years, 1974 to 1975: total field crops, $132,203,000; in 1975, $135.4

million. Total livestock in 1974, $230 million; in 1975, up to $251

million. The total cash receipts of all farm products, $372 million in

1974; in excess of $399 million — almost $400 million — in 1975.

I suggest that that indicates the trend that has been taking place

in B.C. over the last two years. But perhaps we should look a little

further back than two years. This is the Canadian Farm Economic Review

[ Page 1387 ]

published by Agriculture Canada, and there are some very interesting statistics in here, Mr. Chairman.

In British Columbia, in 1961, if you took as an index the figure 100

for the total output from farm production, by the year 1974, which is

the last recorded figure here, that index would have increased to 131,

or an average annual growth rate of 1.98 per cent. That's the output,

Mr. Chairman.

The input in British Columbia, based on a 100 index, 1961, by 1974

had increased to 147, or an annual growth rate of 3.81. I suggest that

increased input indicates the position the farmer is in today in

British Columbia in the price of the commodities he is forced to buy,

many of them from outside of the province, many of them from outside of

the country. He is forced to buy on a competitive market the kind of

products that he must have to put into his agricultural production.

Just some of these major items I might relate to you, Mr. Chairman.

For example, in British Columbia the cost of real estate has increased

from an index of 100 up to 193, a per cent annual growth rate of 6.03.

You will be surprised at this, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, but labour costs

in British Columbia, based on an index of 100 in 1961, by 1974 had

reduced to 74. Of course the reason for that is the increased mechanism

in the farm production, as opposed to so much hand labour.

Incidentally, if you look across the board at some of the tables I have

been looking at lately, you will find that labour costs have varied

very little in any of the provinces. The labour is the most constant

factor that goes into farm products. Mr. Chairman, I think that is

another item that the farmer is having to put out money for, though the

labour has gone down, actually.

But what about farm machinery? The statistics here are slightly

different in the way they are given, but in 1962-66 the average total

cost of new machinery and repairs across Canada was $381.3 million.

This had increased by 1974 to $845.9 million. The cost of machinery is

one of the major contributors to food costs. That has gone up. Labour

has gone down because of the mechanization in farm production. But

those kinds of costs are continuing to inflate. If we are going to keep

a viable industry in B.C., the farm income is going to have to keep

pace with those costs.

Now can we look just for a moment at the relation of the cost of

food to disposable income? We hear a lot of talk about the high cost of

food today. Of course, we go out and we buy our groceries and we

realize that it used to take a $10 bill; then it took a $15 bill, and

now it takes a $20 bill to buy the same amount of groceries. In

relation to disposable income....

MR. MACDONALD: The $3 bill will even buy less. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: In relation to disposable income, Mr. Chairman,

the food costs have increased, from 1961 to 1974, by 180 per cent, but

disposable income for the same period has increased by 227.5 per cent.

The per cent of disposable income spent on food, by the converse, in

1961 was 21.6 per cent and in 1974 it was down to 18.8 per cent. What

I am saying is that we are spending less of our take-home pay on food

today than we were in 1961.

How do our prices compare with prices in other parts of the country,

Mr. Chairman? These figures are based on Canadian prices, not British

Columbia. I couldn't find any British Columbia prices, but we know that

they are maybe just a little bit higher here in B.C. I'm sure you've

seen them, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman — they are from the

brief presented by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on marketing

boards, in fact. These are prices for various commodities: a sirloin

steak in Ottawa, in U.S. dollars, per pound is $2.19 — the same in

Washington; in Paris it's $3.01; in Tokyo, $13.75; in Stockholm, $5.08.

So really we are not doing too badly as far as food prices go.

There's another interesting table here, Mr. Chairman, which talks

about the average weekly wage, and the amount of time it takes to

produce the equivalent to one quart of milk. For example, in 1949 it

took the average person working at the average rate of pay nine minutes

to buy a quart of milk. In 1959 it was down to seven minutes. In 1969,

it was down to 6.4, and in 1975 it was back up to seven minutes, but

it's taking less hours of work to buy a quart of milk today than it did

back in 1949, and that goes on for various commodities. Eggs: 17.5

minutes in 1949, only 10.5 minutes in 1975. Potatoes — no, that's not

available. Sirloin steak: 47.5 minutes in 1949, 30.5 minutes in 1975.

I'm suggesting to you that the cost of food is not excessive

compared to the cost of other products. The farmer has been very

responsible in keeping the cost of food down. It's not been entirely

the farmers in Canada or British Columbia. It's been an international

market situation, and it reflects the fact that the farmer does not

have the kind of clout in the marketplace that so many other groups

that compete in the marketplace do have. He cannot compete with the

cartel that sells machinery or the investors who buy and sell real

estate, or the makers and vendors of fertilizer.

He has little or no control over the freight rates that are charged,

and I know that, through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister has been

discussing this whole problem of freight subsidies very recently when

he met with the western premiers. But this again is another part of the

thing over which the farmer has no control. He is subject to the whims,

or the pricing controls, that are affected by the large and powerful

groups that control so many of the commodities he

[ Page 1388 ]

has to use.

He certainly is not making a huge return at the expense of the

consumer, and he has made, at least here in British Columbia, some

gains in the past few years. I'm suggesting that we must make sure that

those gains are maintained, because in British Columbia agriculture....

We've been talking about it being the fourth-largest industry, but in

actuality it is the third-largest resource industry — forestry, mining

and farming. Tourism is third, but that is not a resource industry.

So some of the things that appear to me to be essential are

that...first of all, an industry that is the third resource industry in

this province merits a full-time minister. I'm very concerned to see,

in spite of repeated promises by the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of this

province to the farmers that there will be a full-time minister, that

there is no provision in these estimates for any ministerial salary or

any support staff for a full-time agricultural minister.

There is another thing that bothers me very much and it also

concerns the farmers of this province. That is the fact that the Land

Commission has been removed from the control of the Minister of

Agriculture, which we do not have, in effect. It is certainly the

contention, that the control of the Land Commission should be returned

to the Department of Agriculture, and that a full-time minister should

be appointed to administer both that very important factor of farm

production along with all the other factors that go into producing

foodstuffs.

We simply cannot have control of our farm land buried in among green

belts and urban development, any more than we can have other matters

that affect the farmers buried among the mobile home companies and the

BCR. Really one of the strongest points that I wish to make in these

estimates is that we have a full-time minister appointed immediately,

and to that minister be returned control of the administration of the

Land Commission.

One of the things that has a tremendous effect on the farm

population, and over which they have no control, is, of course,

imports. Now I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has indicated on

the floor of this House that he's concerned about this, but I have seen

nothing happen. I have seen no positive programmes put forward.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this has to be a federal

programme. It has to have some base in the federal government because

we cannot establish international boundaries around our province; we

cannot keep imports out of this province. The whole transportation

system and the whole item of Confederation are such that there is no

way this can happen.

One of the most startling things that ever occurred to me was back

in the days when I was sitting on the provincial marketing board, and

we were meeting with the Oyster Marketing Board. They were complaining

about the Alberta oysters. Well, coming from Alberta I was a little

surprised to find that there were any oysters in Alberta. So I made

some inquiries about this and discovered that what was happening was

that some growers who did not wish to conform with the schemes and

regulations of the marketing board were consigning their oysters to

Alberta and then shipping them back in. They came in as imports and

were not subject to the controls. But then they got even wiser than

that and found that they didn't have to ship them; they could simply

consign them and then cancel the consignment, and that made them

officially from out of the province, so they were not subject, in the

eyes of the law, to the controls.

This is just one of the things that happened on this business of

imports. It's an impossible thing to control at the provincial level. I

would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must notify you that you have two minutes left.

MRS. WALLACE: Where does the time go?

What are the solutions he is proposing, Mr. Chairman? Does he

support orderly marketing at the federal level? The only solution I

have heard is a $1-a-case subsidy paid to consumers who buy, by the

case, B.C. peas, beans or corn off the shelf. I suggest that that is a

ridiculous solution, Mr. Chairman, because even with that $1 subsidy

they would still be paying more than they would be for the surplus

imports that have been flooding in here. And that kind of a scheme for

people who just do not have storage space for a case of produce, at

this point, would be ridiculous solution, an impossible solution. It

would do nothing. I would suggest to the minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that he should remember the old adage: if he's not part of

the solution, he's part of the problem.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to try to

answer some of the statements made by the previous speaker, and maybe

alleviate some of her concerns.

First of all, let's talk about the income assurance programmes. I

stated very clearly and very emphatically that with this government the

present programmes would stay. I also stated that those programmes

which we had committed would be brought in. I've stated this on

numerous occasions, and I've stated this at meetings with the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture. I don't know how much more emphatic I can be

in that regard.

Now the member is worried about the amount of money in the budget.

But in last year's budget we will probably end up with an

underexpenditure of approximately $5 million, so we're trying to be

[ Page 1389 ]

realistic in setting our budget for this year. It's

a tight year and we're trying to be very realistic, so we have, with

the best of the abilities we have and the work in the Department of

Agriculture, come up with a figure for income assurance programmes

which we feel will be adequate.

Now there's always going to be some variances. If the price of beef

takes off this year and goes up, well, we might not have to expend that

much money, and there may be some downslides. But I want to assure the

member, Mr. Chairman, that the government will certainly stand behind

its commitments and certainly pay out money owing to the farmers on

this programme.

There also seems to be some concern, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the member, on the part of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They are

a good organization. I've met with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture —

they've been to cabinet and they've been to the caucus; I've had

meetings with them and I'll have meetings with them again. I can

understand their concern, but I haven't turned down any opportunity to

meet with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture when they've asked. But

they're concerned, and I appreciate that.

Now last week when they were here, of course, and visited our

caucus, I was out of town because I was down in Medicine Hat arguing

for the agricultural industry of British Columbia at the Premiers'

conference where we talked about general trade and tariff agreements

and we talked about income assurance programmes on the federal level. I

was down there talking about the agricultural industry of British

Columbia with the other Ministers of Agriculture from the four western

provinces, seeing what we can do to get Ottawa to move on their

assurance programmes, what we can do to improve the general agreement

on tariffs and trade so that western Canada agriculture will not be

suffering undue pressure and hardship from the agricultural industry

across the line. We are not asking for any exception. We just want an

even break so we don't have any extra tariff when our products go into

the United States and a lower tariff when they come back in.

What was the other question, Mr. Chairman? With regard to the cost

of farm machinery and the other costs that the member was speaking

about, we realize that those costs are going up every year. They are

taken into consideration when we sit down with the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and negotiate the costs for the coming year. So I don't

think the member really has to be concerned about that. We've

negotiated and we are still negotiating on some items and we are

negotiating in good faith.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the member's remarks about food

costs versus disposable income because I made the same speech when I

was in opposition. To talk about increased food costs today is not very

political because people are concerned about food costs, and rightly

so. But when you relate food costs to disposable income, yes, you can

work out an equation. It can be argued, anyway.

But I want to tell you that the agricultural industry in British

Columbia in many sectors is becoming more efficient and can produce

more. That's the way we must keep the agricultural industry. I said

this when I addressed the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in

Vancouver in February. We must always see that the agricultural

industry remains a competitive industry. Otherwise we will have a world

food shortage. But as long as the agricultural industry remains a

competitive industry where the farmers are looking for new ways to do

things and where there is an incentive for that farmer to produce food

at a more reasonable cost, then I don't think that British Columbia or

Canada or at least the free world is really in danger of starving to

death, because they will be able to feed us.

But if we take the incentive out of the agricultural industry, then

we will be in trouble, because all we have to do is look at those

nations of the world where there is no incentive left in the

agricultural industry. You will find, Mr. Chairman, that those

countries are coming to us to buy foodstuffs. I don't want to continue

on that basis, but I do want to point it out.

Orderly marketing: as a matter of fact, I think the entire

agricultural industry, the Department of Agriculture and the provincial

government, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the marketing boards,

must all — together, combined, separately — be more interested in

marketing their products. Agriculture is an industry in that sense.

They produce a commodity and we must all work together to see that it

is properly merchandised. We have some merchandising programmes going

on at the present time, our "B.C. Home-Grown." I hope to see some of

those programmes expanded for the benefit of not only the consumer but

also for the benefit of the B.C. agricultural industry.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting indeed to have

before us a Minister of Agriculture who really historically indicated

his position so clearly to all the farmers and all those interested in

the future of B.C. in the past three years that sometimes you would

wonder about this particular appointment. It would lead one to feel

that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is certainly on the

right track with respect to the Department of Agriculture.

I would like to go into a little bit of history for the edification

of some of those who are more recent acquisitions to this club, as one

of my colleagues called it one time, and I wondered exactly how he came

upon that particular description. But in any

[ Page 1390 ]

event, we do have some new acquisitions here and I

am sure that some of them would like to know how people stood in the

past on certain issues.

I can remember, Mr. Chairman, that a couple or three years ago there

were meetings all over this province, particularly in the delta regions

of this province. And when I'm talking about delta, I'm not talking

specifically about the constituency of Delta but anywhere where there

is delta land. In those meetings a great many charges were made —

charges about what was going to happen to the people in British

Columbia. Oh, they were even going to lose their watch, Mr. Member for

Skeena (Mr. Shelford), certainly their shoes and, of course, any rights

to wedding rings. Yes, yes, there were worries about wedding rings....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 3.

MR. COCKE: I am talking in terms of Bill 42 which was an

agricultural bill. You were trying to get me back to vote 3, Mr.

Chairman, and I was talking about the minister's fitness to fill this

particularly important portfolio in this province. So I'd like to

pursue my argument.

Mr. Chairman, I contend that B.C. can starve in the very near

future. The people in British Columbia can starve in the very near

future. That's really what worries me. Because of this past experience

that we've had with some of these members of this coalition, how can we

trust them, and particularly this member, to do the right thing

regarding land use with respect to agriculture that has to be done over

the next few years?

I contend that that minister — in those days a member — tried his

level best to scare people. He spoke in that corner of this House for

34 hours in opposition to Bill 42 just on the principle of the bill.

And shame on the member from Delta (Mr. Davidson) if he's pounding his

desk and backing that position, because he therefore continues to place

B.C. in jeopardy. I would implore the first minister in this province

not to let him near the agricultural or any other portfolio that has

anything to do with land use because, Mr. Chairman, this province is in

jeopardy.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Whose fault is that?

MR. COCKE: Unlike Hawaii and other places that are relatively

self-sufficient, B.C. is in jeopardy. Let me tell you what would place

us in severe jeopardy now, and what will, in any event, in the future.

It's California, Mr. Chairman, recognizing three things — recognizing

first that they have an agricultural land attrition that we once had

until the last three years, Mr. Member, while you were sunning yourself

down there in Hawaii. Until the last three years this province had a

tremendous agricultural land attrition, and that very thing is

presently occurring in the sunny state of California. We are virtually

totally dependent upon that jurisdiction for our food in this province.

Therefore as their land attrition develops and grows and there is less

and less land for development of food in California, what will occur,

Mr. Chairman, will be a thought process that will sort of indicate to

the officials down there and to those marketing foodstuffs that maybe

we'd better keep our food for those here in California.

The second thing that they face in California — and this is why I

feel the response to Bill 42, the Land Commission Act that this

minister so wildly fought, was so tremendously thoughtless — is a water

shortage. Now we have an attrition of land and we have a water shortage

that's growing in the southern states, particularly in California —

again, Mr. Chairman, bringing us closer to the day when, if we haven't

agricultural land available and developed in this province, we will not

be able to feed our own people.

The third thing that we face immediately in the foreseeable future

will be not only the cost of fuel, but the scarcity of energy, the

scarcity of fuel. Think in terms of those trucking fruit or food from

the state of California to British Columbia. Are they going to be

particularly motivated — that is, those distributing — to pay the high

cost of those energy requirements? I suggest to you, no.

So what do we have? We have a three-pronged reason — far more than

that, but just an immediate, three-pronged reason — for saying that the

minister in his opposition to this bill was wrong, and the member for

Delta today is equally wrong in suggesting that Bill 42, or the Land

Commission Act, was not in the best interests of the people of British

Columbia. Of course it was!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I don't believe you should be

discussing legislation in Committee of Supply. Could you confine your

remarks to vote 3, please?

MR. COCKE: I'm sure I shouldn't, Mr. Chairman, but this is

part of the reason for questioning the Minister of Agriculture and his

ability to handle the kind of portfolio he has. Now we are talking

about farmland, so I won't refer, if you would prefer, to that infamous

bill, but I will refer to the land-use policy in the immediate future.

The land-use policy in British Columbia must be one that turns an

about-face of everything that the old Socreds and the new coalition

stands for. It must be an about-face from all that support that I saw

during the last election for this minister's position. As I drove

through Delta, as I drove through Richmond, what did I see? La-di-da!

On every field, a sign! The

[ Page 1391 ]

one that scared me most was the sign that was there

in support of the now Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who

is also chairman of the ELUC.

You see, Mr. Chairman, farmland in our province is in jeopardy.

Farming in our province is in jeopardy. There is no way that we as an

opposition can stand still and say to people: "Peace and love. Let this

minister prove himself." I suggest to the people in this province, yes,

let this minister prove himself. The only way I can see this minister

proving himself is to stand up in this House and dissociate himself

with every word he said in 1973 standing on this side of the House.

Now I don't expect the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) to do that

sort of thing. I don't expect the member for Delta to dissociate

himself with something that he said a few moments ago. But I hope that

as he thinks....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I've watched your municipality just completely

wrecked in many areas by the land use that we developed over a number

of years in this province, Mr. Member for Delta. I was ashamed of the

kind of position that was taken. I can remember when the old planning

group went down the tube — in 1967, wasn't it, Mr. Member? Wasn't it

1967 or 1968?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I can remember very well. Certainly the member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) remembers it with a great deal of

embarrassment because that commission had the audacity to want to

protect the delta regions of our province. Oh, shame on them! Shame

on them!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What about Tilbury Island?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Columbia River has

woken up. We're pleased with that. I'd like the member for Columbia

River, who has been around here for some time, to stand up and tell us

what kind of support he is going to give to retention of agricultural

land for agricultural purposes in this province. It is a most

significantly important decision that every man and woman in this House

must make, a decision that, if we don't make it, I suggest even the

people in the north, and particularly the people in the south, are in

jeopardy.

We have generations to come in this province, Mr. Chairman,

generations that depend on the decisions which are going to be made in

the next while. I hope the decisions that that coalition made when they

were fighting this group, which was then government, are going to be

reversed in the immediate future. If they are not, then we are truly in

jeopardy. My children and their children cannot look forward to a

fulfilled life in a province that is suffering from not only

starvation, but a bleak, bleak future. They won't even be able to feed

the miners, Mr. Minister who sends notes of defence to the Minister of

Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, the minister, in the strongest possible terms, should

stand up immediately and tell us that everything he said during those

34 hours and those 14 other hours — those 14 other hours in committee

on the same bill.... I have never heard such a...

AN HON. MEMBER: Harangue.

MR. COCKE: ...harangue. Yes, Mr. Member, that's an excellent word. I've never heard such a harangue in all my life.

Mr. Chairman, let's hear it from him. Let's hear it for his children

and their children. Let's hear how he stands on that particular piece

of legislation today, and let's hear how he feels his colleagues stand.

Just before I sit down, I was interested recently in a little bit of

news. That was the news that the Socreds — that's describing this

coalition over here — were criticized over farm income. Mr.

Chairman, Ralph Baracello, president of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture, said Saturday — and I'm quoting from The Province , April

26. "From conversations I hear, some farmers feel that they are on the

verge of getting out of agriculture," he said in an interview.

You know, this kind of goes along with what I'm talking about. I

listen to attacks on the wine industry. That's part of agriculture. I

listen to attacks on different aspects of the agricultural industry in

this province and I get worried, Mr. Chairman. Only 2 per cent, or 2 1/2

per cent or certainly no more than 3 per cent of our land is arable,

and if we're building houses and exhausting this tremendously important

resource in this province, we are in true jeopardy. But here again:

"From the conversations I hear, some farmers feel they're on the verge

of getting out of agriculture." Now he wasn't talking about the Land

Commission. He was talking, of course, in terms of income assurance,

and what was the response?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, it was last year, April 26. Mr. Chairman, what

was the response of your able Minister of Agriculture, through you to

the Premier. What was his response? I don't know what I was talking

about, but maybe the Minister of Agriculture knew what he was talking

about. He said in Vancouver: "Agriculture minister Don Phillips said in

an interview that 'Baracello's statement about food shortage is an

irresponsible scare tactic.' " These are

[ Page 1392 ]

indicators, Mr. Chairman, significant indicators

that tell me that he hasn't changed his ways, that he still doesn't

have an understanding, a handle, on agriculture. How come you appointed

him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're still wrong. You haven't changed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I may still be wrong but, you know,

in the eyes of my mother I will always be right, and in the eyes of you

and your ilk I will always be wrong. So, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't

scare me very much. I suggest to you, to those people in this House who

take this subject as lightly as the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), that member who is trying to claw his way to....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That member who is trying to claw his way into the

coalition. Tough beans you didn't start out as a Conservative or a

Liberal, but we wish you a lot of luck. Mr. Chairman, I just want to

point out that this minister not only was on record then but is on

record now when he accuses a very conservative, careful person like the

president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — and there's no one

who can propose that the Federation of Agriculture is in any way

radical. I don't think anybody can make that proposition stick.

Mr. Chairman, the minister responded that the Baracello statement

about food shortage is an irresponsible scare tactic, so really it's

right in line with his thinking back in 1973 when he opposed keeping

agricultural land for agricultural purposes. I just hope against hope

that we're going to hear something positive come from that side of the

House as quickly as possible. Certainly he's getting some fatherly

advice now from the Premier. Let's hope if the advice is good, that he

follows it, if for no other reason than for the preservation of his job.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have just a few words,

Mr. Chairman. I'm rather appalled at the statements from that member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and his great concern at this time

vis-à-vis the preservation of agricultural land in this province,

because I'll never forget when the former member for Richmond — you

remember him; his name was Steves in case you don't remember him —

stood in this House and condemned the former government on the basis of

their absolute destruction of some of the prime agricultural land in

this province by the establishment of an industrial development park on

Tilbury Island in which they destroyed 728 acres of prime agricultural

land. Class one land, the best agricultural land in this province, was

destroyed by that government in the establishment of an industrial

development park. They talk about their great concern about the

preservation of agricultural land. But we know full well what they did

with those 728 acres of prime agricultural land.

And that wasn't good enough. In their pursuit of industrial

development in the province, they weren't satisfied with the

destruction of that prime agricultural land on Tilbury Island. They

moved up to Kamloops — just slightly east of Kamloops — and destroyed

some of the best agricultural land in that region, flat agricultural

land. They destroyed 950 acres of what was always a very viable hop

farm controlled by that great multinational corporation Molson's. It

had been purchased by a dozen entrepreneurs from Kamloops who were out

for a quick buck. And there's that right. That right is still here in

this country. They're out for a quick buck. They found some suckers,

Mr. Chairman, in the executive cabinet of this province who were

prepared to pay them for the sale of half of the old Molson hop farm,

$1 million more than what they paid for the entire tract of land, 950

acres.

The government was anxious to destroy this prime agricultural land

in the Kamloops area. Yes, they wanted an industrial development park.

That had a priority with that government, Mr. Chairman. They have the

audacity to stand in this House and suggest for one moment that they're

concerned about the preservation of agricultural land. How shallow

those words are, shallow indeed, coming from that minister over there,

that former Minister of Health, when we've seen the kind of

desecration, the kind of destruction that took place under their

government vis-à-vis agricultural land. Any developer that had some

prime agricultural land for sale, all he had to do was approach that

socialist government and pay him a good buck, and it was a quick buck

to be made in the sale of agricultural land to that government that was

so anxious for industrial development in this province.

And that wasn't enough, Mr. Chairman. The government took additional

prime agricultural land in the community of Richmond. Oh, yes. It was

okay because it was for a claims centre for ICBC. It doesn't matter

whether it's agricultural land when they are government.

What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, is that that was a

government of double standard. That was a government that suggested

that the people had to preserve their land for agricultural purposes,

but when it became necessary at the whim of that government to destroy

their agricultural land, it appeared to be okay. It was a government of

double standard, Mr. Chairman, and all I want to hear from the minister

tonight is that we won't, in this government today, have the kind of

double standards and the kind of destruction of agricultural land we

experienced in the last three years.

[ Page 1393 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman , you know we

can always rely on our friend from Columbia River to get up and take us

15 miles off course. One gets the feeling with that member that he's

the kind of alter ego of the cabinet. When we're getting too close to

the point, he comes in and takes us way over there.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Jimmy, don't hide behind Cyril. I can't see you.

MR. CHABOT: I'll follow you.

MR. LEVI: I was interested in the replies that the minister

gave after the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke, and I detected a

distant sense of ennui. For the minister's benefit, that's a kind of

tiredness, not too much enthusiasm in the way he was replying to the

questions.

I have an opportunity to tell the minister that I spent four days in

his riding. I came back yesterday and I can understand why he has that

feeling of ennui.

They say up there that agriculture has 2 per cent of the land and

we've got a minister who is prepared to spend 2 per cent of his time

dealing with agriculture. They're very concerned. You know, next time

you go back up you're not going to be able to make the same speech that

you made to the chamber of commerce — and I understand you've made it

twice now. I'm on the agricultural list, but he is the minister. Mr.

Chairman, 2 per cent of the time — but he is the minister.

One of the questions that was brought to the minister's attention

when he was up there was a form which the assessment branch sent out. I

gather that at the meeting the minister was shown the form. I think he

thought it was a football pool application because he didn't know what

it was. He'd never seen one before. Neither had the farmers. They had

never received a farm land return. He said that he would undertake to

take a look at it and to find out why it was sent out. It's a very

complicated document. It's got a lot of questions like types and

quantities of farming unit, crop production, livestock and livestock

products production, property leased or rented, how much acreage, your

name, where you live. But what I was interested in was that, so far,

they have not had an explanation.

It was suggested to them that what they should do up there, if they

were in the South Peace River area, is to go down and see the agent at

Pouce Coupe and he would help them fill it out. I think that the

assessment department forgot to inform the agent in Pouce Coupe,

because he wasn't able to help them fill it out.

On April 28 the Dawson Creek News reported:

"Farmers have been urged not to complete a farmland

taxation questionnaire recently circulated by the B.C. Assessment

Authority. Harry Riedeke, a member of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board,

warned that the provincial government is considering changing farmland

assessment rules to get maximum revenue."

You should listen to this, Mr. Minister, because I'd like you to perhaps respond to it afterwards.

"He told the annual meeting of the B.C. Council of

Marketing Boards that officials of the Authority told a recent meeting

of more than 150 farmers on Vancouver Island that the government is

considering adopting the assessment legislation now used in Ontario.

The legislation puts such commodity groups as greenhouse growers, egg

producers, chicken producers, turkey producers, nurseries, feedlots on

virtually an industrial taxation base.

"Mr. Riedeke went on to say if this happened in

British Columbia, food costs for the consumer will have an immediate

increase. But even worse is that it will put some farmers out of

business and this will cause more control over the food industry from

outside of the province."

Now in his response to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), the minister touched very lightly...he did a light touch of

disposable income. He said that when he was on this side of the House

he used to use the same argument.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Disposable income. Well, the disposable income of

people in this province has had a very bad time as the result of a

number of significant increases in taxation, in ICBC insurance — and

the other day we had the ferry increase. The disposable income is

shrinking. Let me just relate some of this problem to the small

businessman, and again go back to the minister's riding because it is

made up of farmers.

As the minister knows, the town of Grande Prairie is about 60 miles

away. The small businessmen are very concerned, as the farmers are,

that people are now going on regular trips to Grande Prairie to

purchase their hard goods as well as purchasing food. I think that some

of the members may have seen a recent news shot taken in Bellingham,

doing a survey of the number of people that go down to Bellingham to

shop — not just to shop for clothes and shoes but to shop for food. We

were faced with the interesting phenomenon of literally hundreds and

thousands of British Columbians coming back over the border with food

that was purchased in the United States. The minister gave a very light

touch about disposable

[ Page 1394 ]

income. The reason they are going down there is

because what little disposable income they have left appears to go a

lot further down there than it does up here.

Now that has to have a very significant impact not only on the small

businessman but on the farmer. That's a pity because when the minister

first got his portfolio — and as happens with new ministers, they are

asked to have interviews — he was interviewed, and I am just saying

what the quote was. It may not be what the minister actually said, but

it says here: "He indicated that the Agriculture portfolio he sees as

an easy one to carry." Well, if he devotes 2 per cent of his time to

it, it's going to be very easy.

"In B.C. agriculture has reached a plateau," he says.

"I think its operating difficulties are straightened out and I would

like agriculture to become an aggressive seller. I would like to see

more involvement of youth in agriculture."

When he said that, I was interested in the minister's government, and I looked up the Hansard .

I was wondering what kind of monumental contribution this man must have

made in terms of agriculture for the Premier not only to make him

Economic Development minister but also to make him Agriculture

minister. His contribution, apart from the land question, which was

adequately discussed by my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke),

was virtually nothing.

Now I don't think that the farming community, up to the present

time, is taking the minister seriously in terms of the efforts that he

indicates he wants to make in terms of agriculture. He has a sense of

the light touch with this portfolio, considering that the previous

minister spent three years full-time trying to get an industry back on

track that had been neglected for 20 years.

The present minister talks about initiative and incentives. The

incentives were so apparent in 1972 and 1973 that one of the major

demands by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was that they had to be

helped in terms of incentives. That was one of the reasons that the

farm income assurance programme was brought in. You seem to have some

feeling that by some magical waving of a wand somehow incentives are

going to produce the kinds of things that only money can produce. Most

of these people had no money — that's one of the reasons that the farm

income assurance programme was brought in.

Since he has been the minister, although he says that he is prepared

to meet with the agricultural federation — they are, after all, the

spokesmen for the farmers of this province — they are not satisfied.

They do not appear to be satisfied at all that the minister is serious

about meeting with them.

There's been a succession of press releases from the agricultural

federation about the difficulty they have in meeting with the minister.

They are concerned about the arbitrary fashion in which he discusses

things, in which he makes statements. I don't think the minister really

can say that he has really behaved as an agricultural minister in the

first five months. We will get to his economic portfolio later on.

But, you know, when you travel around — and we in this caucus have

travelled around quite a bit and have had an opportunity to talk to the

farming community — there is a great deal of apprehension out there. If

the minister thinks that he can be taken seriously by the community,

then he's going to have to be a lot more assertive in the things he

says. I had expected from him tonight when he got up to speak that he

was going to go into one of his flights where he would be speaking

firmly, mostly to the back bench just to spur them on a little bit, but

he wasn't. He suffered, as I described earlier, from that feeling of

ennui because he's been battered quite a bit by the farmers.

Now the thing is, Mr. Minister, you're simply going to have to come

clean with the farmers and tell them exactly what you're going to do.

You know, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture issued a press

release March 9. They said, in part: "The chairman also criticized the

arbitrary manner being imposed by the government in its dealings with

the farmer. All previous plans had been settled through negotiation,

and my committee remains willing to sit down and discuss the problem."

This is from Mr. Turner. "We must have the assurance, however, that

whatever agreement is reached, our actual production costs will be the

basis of the income assurance plan." This is in relation to the sheep

producers committee.

The thing is that this kind of atmosphere did not exist in the past

three years. It's no coincidence that this atmosphere exists today,

because you said one thing in the election and you're doing an entirely

different thing. You know, perhaps the farmers were grateful for the

kind of programmes that will be introduced, but we were not convinced

in any way that because we introduced these programmes they were going

to vote for us. It appears that most of them didn't. But the point is,

what we were looking at was supporting an industry which is crucial

that it be supported in this province. We have no indication from that

minister at all, no indication whatsoever, that the farmers can look

forward to a continuation of the kind of progress they have made.

After all, the minister said in one of his earlier interviews that

he thinks that farming has reached a plateau. I presume from that that

they'll just have to rest with what they've got, and he's going to go

out and do a selling job for them. In the meanwhile, their costs are

going to go up. In the meanwhile, their disposable income to consumers

is going to drive them over the border and, of course, the farmers and

the small village men are not going to benefit from

[ Page 1395 ]

the policies of this minister, not going to benefit at all.

You have an obligation to tell us in this House.... We don't want to

know about your economic policies; we'll do that later on. But tell us

what it is you're really going to do for the farmers, apart from not

really seeing them as often as you should.

You know, I just want to make some reference to the land question —

if I can relate it very tightly, Mr. Chairman, because I see you're

looking at me — in terms of the kind of thing that we were trying to do

in this province. We had the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

after we had his answer to the Bill 42 legislation, get up and tell us

about Tilbury Island. He was a member of the previous Social Credit

administration that wreaked havoc in this province, particularly in the

lower mainland area, particularly in the member for Delta's (Mr.

Davidson) riding. But he, of course, is opposed to the land bill and

I'm sure would like to see it disposed of. I'm sure that we'll probably

see that Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) presiding over the

dismantling of the Land Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are speaking on vote 3, Hon. Member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about land. That's in farming, isn't it?

The tragedy with the Land Commission, of course, is it's a little

dicey because it used to be under the Minister of Agriculture. Now it's

under the Minister of Environment. But he ...

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: ...has to have some concern about that, as the

farmers have concern, because now they have to deal with two ministers.

They have to deal with a 2 per cent minister and they have to deal with

the Minister of Environment who says: "I don't know anything about the

environment." He's responsible for the most important committee that

the government has, Environment and Land Use Committee, and he's also

responsible for the Land Commission. Aren't you a little bit concerned,

Mr. Minister of Agriculture, just a little bit concerned on behalf of

the farmers? You don't appear to be, but they are concerned; you know

that they're concerned. When they have been able to see you they've

expressed that concern.

So I would hope that as you go to put your pen to paper you'll make

a note to respond to that and give us some assurance along with your

colleague the Minister of Environment, that the Land Commission is safe

and that farmland is safe, because so far we've not heard anything from

you in respect to that very important question.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): It's certainly been an

interesting discussion so far. I must say I haven't heard too many

suggestions that are going to help the farmers of this province.

I hope that before this discussion ends we'll have many ideas

because there are certainly many problems facing the farmers — more

than ever before, possibly, in our history. I don't want to take up the

time of this House in discussing the Land Commission. I would expect

that most members in this House support the preservation of farmland;

certainly the majority do, at any rate. I would only ask those who are

levelling criticism on the former Social Credit government who did the

mapping of the farmland throughout this province.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The federal government.

MR. SHELFORD: The federal government in conjunction with the B.C. Department of Agriculture, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on, Graham — give him that one.

MR. SHELFORD: He better give it to me, because we did it. He knows he's not telling the truth if he doesn't.

MR. LEA: I heard you on TV during the campaign and you were wrong there, too.

MR. SHELFORD: You should have heard lots before 1972, when I

was already talking about the preservation of farmland. It was

something that had to be done. The government recognized it had to be

done and that's why the government in conjunction with the national

government, carried out the survey of farmland.

I must say I was surprised, in listening to the debate on the

Attorney-General's salary vote, at the lack of support for B.C.-grown

products, and especially grapes, because this is one industry I think

we all should be very proud of. It started from a very small start and

certainly is a good industry and employs a lot of people. I would say

that B.C. wines, for the price range they are in, are certainly better

than what you would buy from foreign countries. There's a lot of people

who like the foreign bottle, but I don't think the wine in it....

I'm glad to see the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has

changed his mind. I remember him standing in this House when I was

Minister of Agriculture, and "you're certainly making some lousy

wines," I think were his words. He said that they weren't any good. I

will

say that after he flunked out on the test he was man enough to get up

and admit

[ Page 1396 ]

he was wrong. So I am glad those tests did some good. We certainly got one convert. B.C. wines are good wines.

I think it would certainly be a shame to see too many cheap foreign

wines come in and put our own people out of work. When you think of it,

we are not all that frank when we spend millions of dollars in research

on agricultural products of industry that we might be able to develop,

and we also spend millions of dollars in trying to get industry

established in various parts of our country, and then the first thing

we do is turn around and encourage foreign products to come in and

destroy the industry we've spent so much on to try and bring in.

Sometimes you do wonder exactly what we're doing in our educational

system — somewhere we seem to be going wrong.

We certainly are facing many problems in the expansion of the

agricultural industry into the north country. Many changes will

certainly have to be made. We are often told by the boards, especially

the Egg Marketing Board, that they will attempt to shift production

into the north as recommended by the Garrish report. I think the

Garrish report was an excellent report and gave some good ideas that

certainly government should look at very carefully. However, I would

like to see the northern producers pay up their dues so that we can get

on with the job of trying to help them out. I think everyone has to pay

his way in a marketing scheme.

In my opinion expansion won't happen in the egg industry, with the

present restriction of 200 cases. I don't think, personally, that 200

cases in that north country, where they have the high cost of grading

plants, feed mills, et cetera, are enough. In the lower mainland they

can move their eggs to a grading plant without cost or with very little

cost, and there are plenty of feed plants where they can get their

products. In the north country, they have to have their own plants. For

instance, in Terrace we only have one producer. It's not practical for

him to send his eggs to Prince George to have them graded or to bring

in feed from Prince George. It's a must that he has to have his own

plant. I would say the bankers in the area wouldn't look at a young man

who came in and said that he wanted to start a new farm for egg

production, because of the 200-case limit. The bankers tell me that it

is not sufficient production to carry the high capital cost involved,

especially in that area. So I do hope the northern producers with get in

with the board and then we can get in and try and help them get

production moved into that area.

I would again recommend an economic survey of the industry by an

independent team. I don't think we should expect the producers of one

area to resolve a problem that government should be doing in another. I

think it is something like asking Ford Motors to resolve a problem with

General Motors. As I said before, it just won't work. I think an

economic survey to find out exactly what it does cost.... Maybe 200

cases is okay — but I think the people of the north should know whether

it is a realistic level or not.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks from across the way,

and it is certainly not my intention to spend all my time criticizing

those who have spoken earlier. I would say that we must face the facts

of life that neither the federal nor the provincial governments had any

changes in policy so far, or only Band-aid policy changes. I would say

it is a little like trying to patch a fishing rod while the boat was

sinking.

Now the federation of agriculture, the other day in their

presentation to the caucus, made some good points such as the need and

the function of marketing boards. I think they made a very good case.

Unfortunately, they did not deal with the overall policy, as a

completely new policy in agriculture has to be developed. This was

attempted by the provincial ministers between 1968 and 1972. I would

say that it was one of the few times where the ministers representing

four political parties agreed that the Band-aid approach had failed

miserably in serving not only the farm industry but also the consumers

in the long run.

I always regretted that most of my time was taken on minor issues,

and far too little could be spent in developing long-range plans for

the future. That's why earlier, Mr. Minister, I recommended that we

should strive for shorter sessions so the ministers can get out and

develop worthwhile programmes, not just in agriculture but in all

fields. I still believe it is very necessary, and I think ways will

have to be found to try and keep our sessions short. Any other

government coming in, following us, would find the same problem. I'm

quite sure some of you found it when you were there — you didn't have

enough hours in the day.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): We should have more committees.

MR. SHELFORD: That might be one solution, yes.

I would say we should take a look at the brief by the federation of

agriculture. I think it would be a surprise to any of us who once in a

while browse around the chain stores, like I do. I got in the habit. My

good friend Sig there I think took me around once in a while to show me

what was going on. I think it is an eye-opener when you take a look at

the figures in the federation's brief where apples, last year, averaged

3.6 cents a pound. Now the average selling price in the chain stores

throughout the district where I come from...you are mighty lucky if you

can get three pounds for $1, and that has to be a sale. I'm quite sure

it's that way in Prince Rupert,

[ Page 1397 ]

too. Now this is 10 times, of course, what the producer receives.

MR. COCKE: They're 29 cents a pound.

MR. SHELFORD: As a percentage of total selling price, this is

less than at any time in our history, even lower than what it was, say,

back in the Depression, as far as the percentage of what the consumer

receives.

We spend nearly a third of our total budget, as I mentioned earlier,

on education. And by the serious problems we face in this country in

agriculture, housing, the whole economic system — unemployment, and the

income-spread between the rich and the poor is getting greater and not

less, and many other issues, and quite a few of these with no apparent

solution right at this moment — we must all wonder: have we wasted our

money? I think we all want to sit up and take a real serious look at

what we have done in our spending.

We still, as I mentioned, don't seem to be any closer to a solution

than we were years and years ago. I remember going to Courtenay one

time to an agriculture convention, and we dug up three resolutions that

were passed in 1917. I read them out at the convention and they thought

they were current resolutions, because one of them was on the price

spread, the other one was on the rail transportation from east to west

— and I just forget what the other one was, but it's the same type of a

problem that we are facing today. As I say, really, we haven't resolved

the problem of a price spread between the consumer and the producer in

100 years.

I would recommend to you, Mr. Minister, that you immediately meet

with the federal government and all provinces to set up a small

committee of practical people with no other duty for one year but to

map out a new approach for agricultural policies for the next decade.

As I said before, you, yourself, I know very well, don't have that kind

of time to spend on such a committee, because there's a lot of work to

be done, and there's a lot of real serious problems that you run into —

when you think you're finding an answer, all of a sudden you find

yourself in an obstruction.

I think we might as well clearly understand that major solutions

will not be found at the provincial level only, so I make the following

suggestion for possible new approaches to this whole question — and I

know I'm not going to get agreement from many members in this

Legislature.

First of all, study the method to ensure that the primary producer

receives not less than one-third of the total consumer price. This

would encourage efficiency at the wholesale and retail levels. Of

course, there has never been any encouragement in the past because all

you had to do was build another blacktop parking lot and charge it up

to the consumer. Our giant retail chains have grown up with little

thought of cost saving in a system where fixed markup is cherished at

the wholesale and retail level. If this was done by the producers on

top of production price, farm prices would be two or three times and,

in some cases, 10 times as high as they are today.

What I'm saying is that if the wholesale and retail levels can take

this approach, why not the producers? I can just hear the screams if a

farmer put in a two-acre parking lot and charged it against his

production cost of apples or potatoes. We have a free market system on

one hand and a fixed markup on the other. How stupid can we really get

to expect that this system can go on forever without really breaking

down and seriously affecting all of us? You can't tell me that it

should cost up to 10 times more to move a product from the farm to the

consumer than to cultivate the land, fertilize, plant the crop, pay for

the machinery, harvest and move it to the market. There just has to be

a better system found.

I should point out before I start on my second point that the Prices

and Incomes Commission say that they'll hold the profits of the major

chains to 7 per cent. I would say it's a laugh. It doesn't mean a

thing, because if you own your wholesale chains, which are mainly owned

across the line, all you have to do is up your wholesale price and you

can still fall within the guidelines. So we shouldn't be kidded that

we're really resolving anything in this regard. I brought this to the

attention of the minister in Ottawa and he said he recognized I was

correct and that they were trying to find ways to resolve this very

serious problem.

My second point is that with social unrest and endless strikes and

lockouts, which by all indications are getting worse, governments must

change their approach from allowing local production to disappear and

rely on foreign imports of even bare necessities. This must change and

policy be developed to see we produce enough at least to keep us from

starving until production could be started again. A serious strike, for

instance, in the transportation system of another country, or a war,

flood or any other natural disaster could really put us in a serious

position in trying to feed our people. I would say we simply can't

afford this, even though more of our income will have to go towards

food production. We should be able to afford this, as pointed out by

the Federation of Agriculture. We spend about 17.5 per cent of our

income, compared to most European countries, where 20 and even 30 per

cent of disposable income goes for food. Of course, in the Asiatic

countries it's far higher than that. So I think we have to be prepared

to do this.

A third point, I'd say, is the most important of all. We are

spending a lot of time in Ottawa trying to resolve ways to use our own

food first before we get

[ Page 1398 ]

into imports of food. We quite often see where food

is brought in just to cut the price in our own area, and then of course

that's the level of the price to everyone. So I think what we should do

is consider the need of setting up a food import corporation with

branches in each province — this was discussed by the ministers during

the time I was there — which would bring in all the foreign imports,

thus ensuring the sale of our production before bringing in any imports.

This is a must if we are to develop our own industry. It would have

many advantages over tariffs and duties which upset our foreign trading

partners. They wouldn't get particularly upset by us using our own

products first, but they do get upset if we do put a tariff on their

products. This wouldn't leave the imports to the whims of unscrupulous

traders who wish to bring in cheap carloads of food just to undercut

the local producers so that they have to sell the rest of their crop

for less.

I've seen this happen in the apple industry, where one carload would

be brought in from the state of Washington at a lower price just to

show the fruit board that they were selling too high and they had to

get down to this import level. It wasn't really a real price and they

couldn't have got large quantities at this price. But if you can pick

up one carload, it can do an awful lot of damage to the boards which,

generally speaking, do a good job. So far we haven't found a better

system. I think we should try and help them instead of tearing them

apart.

I've seen this, as I've said, many times and it not only destroys

the agriculture industry, but it also destroys the processing and does

away with quite a number of jobs in our industry.

I realize that some of these changes some of you may consider quite

radical, but I would say that unless we're prepared to make changes

such as I recommend — of an import corporation, so that we use our own

products first — then I would say we'll only have a Band-aid approach

for agriculture forever. I think we have to make up our minds. We

either have to make real changes or we're not going to really change

anything at all. I think it's that simple. And I hope everyone

recognizes it because if you get out into the federal field of what has

happened in the importation of products into Canada, whether it be

peas, beans, corn, or anything else, we pretty well always only bring

in imports to cut our own price down and, unfortunately, destroy our

own industry we've been trying so hard to build up.

We not only have to maintain our farmland. We have to increase

production, which, of course, means an increase in employment in our

province. This would lower our welfare rate, hopefully, and ensure our

independence in this nation. Because if we give away our production

unit, we also give away our nation, too. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. You'll recall that I

spoke a few moments ago, talking in terms of the capacity to deliver of

the new Minister of Agriculture, talking in terms of his opposition to

agricultural land retention in this province, talking in terms of the

fact that we face the strong possibility of placing ourselves in a

position where we can starve because we're totally dependent upon an

outside nation, particularly the state of California which, by virtue

of energy reductions, that is energy resources being depleted — and it

requires energy to move agricultural products and, for that matter, to

reap them and to sow them — and, Mr. Chairman, the attrition of land in

that state and further the fact that water is also a resource that is

depleting in the United States. Therefore we are in jeopardy, I

suggested.

Then I sat here and I was refreshed, not listening to the remarks of

the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who tries to smoke every

proposition that he can by using specious arguments, but, Mr. Chairman,

listening to that highly responsible, responsive discourse on

agriculture that we heard from the member for Skeena. Obviously he is a

person who has thought out the needs of our province, thought out the

needs for the future. Oh, yes, he may be wrong on some things. One

thing he's very wrong on, I feel, and that's politics. But other than

that, he gave a fantastic account of himself, an account of himself

that can come from a responsive person. Why wasn't he appointed

Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman?

The present minister obviously isn't interested, hasn't even got up

to suggest what he's going to say in defence of the former opposition

to land retention. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that member

over there put it straight on the line. He agrees with the retention of

agricultural land for agricultural purposes. He believes in giving that

priority to agriculture that the present minister talks about and does

nothing about.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that everybody

understands clearly that there is support from this side of the House

for progressive, able thinking in agriculture. Thank you.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, I am happy that you refer to me as

the member for Coquitlam. The hon. member for New Westminster refers to

me often as the MLA for Hawaii. It seems to me that by now he should be

able to accept the fact that, in reality, I am the MLA for Coquitlam.

And I'm darned proud of it. Sooner or later, I guess, Mr. Member, you

will accept that fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

MR. KERSTER: On vote 3, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind that hon. member that he tonight has

[ Page 1399 ]

spoken with somewhat of a forked tongue regarding

the preservation of agricultural land. His government, when it was

government, ruined one of the most viable, one of the most productive,

one of the best agricultural areas in Coquitlam by slamming....

MR. COCKE: Burke Mountain?

MR. KERSTER: No, you were on that one next. Your minister of

paper housing, or the former minister of paper housing, was going to

destroy that next. They rammed a four-lane highway right through the

middle of that area much to the chagrin and against the desires of many

of my constituents. I want to bring that out and make that a point of

record. I don't believe that that is preserving farmland. They are

talking out of two sides of their mouths. I don't agree with that

because that is the old "do as I say, not as I do" theory in

approaching people. That was the approach that that government took.

All this pontification by those members tonight on Bill 42 and farmland

preservation to me is just another example of hypocrisy and

irresponsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Terrible!

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on

vote 3, the estimates of the Minister of agriculture, and I will be

very brief. I wish only to bring to the attention of the hon. minister

again the plight of the northern egg producer, the producer in the

north of whom there are very few. However, they must be recognized.

Their problem must be known by the hon. members of this House. They are

fighting for their very existence, a life-and-death struggle which, if

something is not done, will result in their going out of business —

going completely out of business.

We will lose in the north a very viable industry, lose a group of

hard-working northerners concerned only with making a living for their

families, building up a small inheritance for their sons and daughters,

and producing a quality product for the consumption of northerners. Mr.

Chairman, these egg producers are doing all these things while braving

the elements and the high costs in that part of British Columbia. Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this must be recognized — this

must be recognized. The high costs of the north must be taken into

consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like ICBC did.

MR. KEMPF: We must be concerned about the fact that these egg

producers do not, in most cases, have a quota large enough to sustain

their operations and their families.

MR. KING: Where was he when the automobile drivers needed him?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the hon. minister, as a

northerner himself, to initiative an economic survey of the northern

egg producer operations which would result in these individual

enterprise endeavours, these non-subsidized operators, being fairly

treated and allowed to produce a product which, incidentally, is in

short supply in the north.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Don't you guys caucus?

MR. KING: They don't let the northern members in to caucus.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to get

involved in the pros and cons of the egg-marketing situation, but there

have been a few remarks made here tonight that, I think for the record

of this House, I would like to present a few facts as I have them and

as I see them.

First of all, when the egg marketing board was instituted, it was

done under the former Social Credit regime. That government saw fit to

announce to the egg producers of the province that the quotas would be

set on the basis of the number of laying hens that they had at a given

time in the future. It certainly was not the fault of any egg marketing

board, which was not even then instituted, that that information became

more prominently known in the Fraser Valley than it was in the north.

If, in fact, that was the case, and if, in fact, there was some

building up of flocks in the Fraser Valley, it was certainly not the

result of anything the egg marketing board did. It was the result of

the policies of the former Social Credit government which took that

method to institute the egg marketing board.

When the egg marketing board was formed they inherited rules and

regulations as to how quotas should be established, and that is how

quotas were established. The north got the same treatment as the Fraser

Valley from the egg marketing board. That was the initial history of

the establishment of that board, and that's how those quotas were

established. They cannot be blamed on the egg marketing board which was

not even in existence at that time.

Since its inception, the egg marketing board, in my opinion, has

tried very hard to accommodate the northern producers within the lines

of their terms of reference, within the concept of their terms of

reference. They cannot do the things they are not allowed to do. They

have doubled, and more than doubled in some instances, but every one of

those northern producers has received, without any

[ Page 1400 ]

additional charge, double the amount of their

original quota, and with the exception of one of those northern

producers, they are well above the average quota issued to the farmers

across B.C. generally.

Now I think those facts should be written into the record of this

House, Mr. Chairman, because I have great sympathy for people who are

having problems trying to beat the system and keep in business. But I

think we must know what the facts are before we just get carried away

and overly enthusiastic about someone who has, supposedly, suffered.

Those people had their day in court many times over and they may still

have some problems, but I would say that we cannot condemn the system

of marketing boards because of some problems that have occurred within

one marketing board as a result of the method and the terms of

reference under which that marketing board was established.

While I am on the subject of marketing boards, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to commend the minister for his apparent intention to maintain the

B.C. Marketing Board. I see the estimates provide for that again this

year. Of course, I am particularly aware of the kind of service that

board has been able to provide in the past, inasmuch as I was a former

member of the board. I am very glad to see that he had seen fit, in

spite of some words to the contrary, before he became the minister of

Agriculture, that that might not be the case, to carry on with the

marketing board.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think there is a lot of misconception about how marketing boards

are established and what their purpose is. First of all in every

instance they are the representative of a growers' cooperative group.

The growers band together in a cooperative, and that cooperative

proceeds to elect the marketing board.

It seems to be in the minds of consumers that those boards set

prices. Marketing boards do not have that power within the

international marketplace to set prices. A marketing board's prime

purpose is to control production so we do not have great quantities of

surplus food produced that we have to destroy, throw away or waste, or

that we get into a position where one farmer is competing against the

other to try to dispose of his products at a higher price than his

neighbour. This is the basic purpose of the marketing board. This is

the basic concept of the board. It was established to prevent that kind

of cut-throat competition between farmers who were growing the same

product, and to ensure that all farmers would have an equitable return

equally distributed among those growing any one given product.

As a person who is able to remember the pre-marketing board days and

the kind of chaos that we experienced on the farm in trying to sell our

product without the marketing board, I am a very strong convert to this

concept. It is, in effect, the farmer's method of presenting his

product in the marketplace, controlling it, packaging it and presenting

it to the wholesaler.

While in some instances marketing boards may actually set prices,

they are always very much influenced by the market price, not only in

British Columbia but in the United States and in other provinces,

because they must compete with those places. There is no way they can

completely control. As is often the case, and we know is the case,

because of the number of times we read about companies coming before

the commission on the Combines Act where prices are fixed and

controlled, the farmer has no such power with the marketing board to

move in that direction.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to note that this concept is to

be maintained. I would hope that it is one of the thrusts. The minister

talked about marketing as being one of the items that he wants to

really involve the department with, and I would hope that he uses the

existing machinery for doing this, or as a part of the method of doing

this, because that is the farmers' duly elected body to represent them,

and they speak on behalf of the farmers of this province.

I wanted to speak, too, Mr. Chairman, about income assurance. There

have been some references made to income assurance earlier, and I am

very concerned when the minister indicates that, you know, it's just

going to stay as it is. Some of the negotiable items in income

assurance — the variable costs — are to be, as I understand it,

negotiated annually on the contracts. The information I have is that

the labour costs are not to be increased this year. We are expecting a

farmer.... I think the farmer who manages his operation has to be a

bookkeeper, an accountant, veterinarian, have managerial skills. He has

to be a practical man who can get out and actually participate in the

farm activity as well. We expect a man with all those qualifications to

perform for $6 an hour. Now that is less than janitors are getting in

many instances, and we are not even allowing him an 8 or a 10 per cent

increase in the income assurance contract this year. I would urge the

minister to reconsider that particular aspect and allow the farmer at

least the increase to keep up with the inflationary costs that he is

being faced with, at least in the portion relative to his own salary,

Mr. Chairman.

The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) made mention of the

payment factor of income assurance, and the fact that it is not a

subsidy. Perhaps you could call it a Band-aid measure, but it is no

more a Band-aid measure than any other form of insurance. It's a

programme that's around to provide help when something goes amiss. As

such, the farmer

[ Page 1401 ]

contributes, the government contributes, and it is

based on the cost of the production, the costs that go into producing

that product.

But do you think for a minute, Mr. Chairman and members of this

House, that the farmer is going to get out of that scheme more than the

cost of production? He gets, in fact, as I understand it, something

like 75 per cent of the cost of production in the event that he claims

anything at all, because it is not paid out at 100 per cent. I think

the figure is 75 per cent in most instances, and that is based

strictly on costs as agreed to between the Department of Agriculture

and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who negotiate these schemes.

They're based on costs which are supposedly to assure a reasonable wage

rate — and that's why I'm concerned about no inflationary factor being

provided for the farmer in his wage rate this year. It is also to

provide a return on investment and a management fee. These items are

negotiated on the basis of variable costs, non-variable capital,

miscellaneous revenue and marketing cost. All these factors are taken

into consideration.

Formulas are worked out for each plan, Mr. Chairman, and it seems a

very practical way of approaching this problem where we have a farm

community which is not an economic entity at this point in time because

of a surplus situation presently existent, at least within North

America, in the food supply. It's serving a purpose. It's keeping that

community viable, keeping them operational, and keeping them on the

farm so when we are faced with a position where those imports are not

available, or when we're faced with a famine in some part of the world,

or a drought, as has been indicated may be occurri