1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

647 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Fraser — 647

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 649

Mr. Gardom — 650

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 650

Hon. Mr. Radford — 651

Mr. Gibson — 652

Mr. Phillips — 652

Mr. Smith — 653

Mrs. Jordan — 656

Mr. Curtis — 659

Mr. McGeer — 659

Mr. Fraser — 660

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 661

Mr. Phillips — 661

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 662

Mr. Phillips — 662

Mr. L.A. Williams — 663

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 665

Mr. Phillips — 667

Mr. Schroeder — 669

Mr. Dent — 670

Mr. Morrison — 671

Mr. Gibson — 671

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 671

Mr. McClelland — 672

Mr. McGeer — 673

Erratum — 674

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office, $74,516.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a few points I'd like to

raise here. First of all, I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, you don't get

the vacuum in here to sweep up all these chicken feathers on the floor.

If there's going to be quotas apportioned out by the government, I

think that some of them should come to the Interior. The Cariboo is

just as capable as my friends from Langley, Chilliwack, Sorrento or

Blind Bay. We'd sure like to get in on the action.

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

Tell us about the chicken pluckers in the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that. I've got news for you. But

apart from all the chicken problems and egg problems and so on, I

think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich),

that there are a lot of other problems in agriculture.

There is one that has just come up. I don't know whether the

Minister is aware of it, but my cousin over there, the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), is aware of it. I

don't think that he's done anything about it, as usual. I want to bring

it to the Minister of Agriculture to see if he'll lean on the Minister

of Transport and Communications about this.

In my riding of Cariboo there was an arrangement made last fall for

a private trucking firm to haul plywood to Calgary and haul feed grain

back. This individual has invested $50,000 in this unit, and had

contracts with the plywood company and the grain company, and permits

from the British Columbia Motor Carrier Commission and the Province of

Alberta. The other day he was stopped at the boundary of B.C. and

Alberta and told he no longer had a permit in Alberta. Consequently

tonight, Mr. Chairman, in the 100 Mile House area of my riding of

Cariboo, there are animals going hungry.

I'd like to know if the Minister of Agriculture knows anything about this

and what he's going to do about it, because there's something radically

wrong here. I think that the Minister of Agriculture can help on this score

in again leaning on the Minister of Transport and Communications to find out

why this permit that he had was cancelled, causing a lot of pain and anguish

to the agriculture industry in the 100 Mile area. As I repeat, they have no

feed tonight because of this arrangement being broken, and I think this is not

good at all.

Another item that I would like to bring up tonight that I don't

think, Mr. Chairman, has been brought up before is what the Minister of

Agriculture is going to do about the high cost of farm trucks and

tractor insurance. Farm truck insurance has gone up in the Interior; I

don't know about the coast, but there aren't any farmers there anyway.

The other point is tractor insurance where a farmer has to cross a

public highway. I understand that their insurance has gone up 100 per

cent. Again I ask the Minister of Agriculture: Does he know about this?

What's he going to do about it? — to this same Minister, the Minister

of Transport and Communications.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Well, that's fine. I'm asking the Minister.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I hate to see you leave because this fellow here will rule against me every chance he gets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tomorrow.

MR. FRASER: Tomorrow, yes.

The Minister of Agriculture was in my home town the other day at a

public gathering, and he made a lot of statements there. He didn't give

too many answers to this public meeting sponsored by the NDP on a

Sunday night. We're all good churchgoers up there, and we resent Sunday

meetings. Anyway, the Minister of Agriculture was there and the chap

that I defeated in the last election was there by the name of Mr. Ron

Anderson. As a matter of fact, he was here today in the gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your back! Watch your back!

MR. FRASER: I want to know if this chap, this defeated

candidate that I defeated in the 1972 election — and I take great

pleasure in saying that — is on the payroll of the Department of

Agriculture. I want to know, because in a press release up there he

said: "I'll find out the answers." And the Minister of Agriculture

said: "You just give all your problems to Ron Anderson and he'll get

the answers for you."

[ Page 648 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: The Minister is putting over the proposition that

this man's the MLA, and he's already been refuted by the public of

Cariboo. I'd like to know what he's getting paid for this, because this

man was, I repeat, defeated. I'm coming to you — don't smile there, Mr.

Minister of Recreation and Conservation, (Hon. Mr. Radford). I'm coming

to the grizzly bear steaks in a minute. But who is the MLA? I'd like

the Minister of Agriculture to answer that question.

I think that this man is on the payroll, because Ron is a great guy

and all the rest of it, but he quit his job in December in the Cariboo,

and I don't think he's living on the Minister of Human Resources. I

don't think that he's getting his income from there. I'll give him more

credit than that, but where is he getting his income from? He's now the

nominated candidate for Kamloops-Cariboo. But I'd like to know if he's

getting any public funds from this socialist enterprise that we have

operating here in Victoria.

Now I want to get on to the things that really count — Bill 42, Mr.

Chairman. I would really like to know if the Minister who is

responsible for this bill knows what is actually going on. He certainly

didn't when the debate was on for two weeks last year, because the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams),

and I wish he was here.... He's not here but he was calling all the

shots. But now we're progressing on this bill, and it's become quite

serious. For over a year now it's gone on and all development is at a

stop.

The Minister of Agriculture was asked this question at this famous

meeting in Quesnel, and he referred all the questions to somebody else.

I don't think this is right. I think he has some of the answers and I'd

like to know when he's going to give some of them.

One particular thing I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture is

whether he has, as Minister, brought this to the attention of his

appointed Land Commission. In the Cariboo we have a lot of family

ranches. They're not farms, they're ranches. We don't believe in farms

in the Cariboo, they're called ranches, but they're now at their

second, or third, or fourth generation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote 8.

MR. FRASER: I know, but I want to get this in here, too, as well as 8.

If your farmland is rightly in Bill 42, there is no way, when the

second generation, as an example, wants to turn over to the third

generation, that the second generation can get a place to retire on

that parcel of property. I would like to know from the Minister of

Agriculture whether he has passed on these requests to the B.C. Land

Commission. I'm sure he's had them. I have, and I consider it very

important that some provision should be made by the B.C. Land

Commission such that they provide for, say, the second generation to be

able to subdivide a portion of the land that has gone on to the third

generation so they can still live on the property.

I have two or three families where the farm has always been in the

family name for longer than British Columbia's been a province — about

110 years. They now find that when the second generation, as an

example, wants to retire, they want to retire on that farm. But they

want title, say, to five acres for their home.

Of course, under Bill 42 they're not allowed to subdivide and that's

the end of that. They have to probably move to some other area and,

family tradition being what it is, it's just not right.

A lot of the old Cariboo ranchers, they're all locked in under Bill

42, even if they've got gravel pits on there. I can't see why provision

can't be made. It certainly can be if the Minister of Agriculture would

consider asking the B.C. Land Commission to look into this and make

provision for the third or the fourth generation, or' whatever it is,

to dedicate a parcel of the complete family unit so that the retiring

family can have their five acres or a small parcel of land.

I don't think you're going to create a real estate rip-off or

anything like it. I think it's a small request, and I'm sure the

Minister will consider it.

I want to go back to rangeland, Mr. Chairman, as related to the

Agriculture department. I wasn't at all satisfied the other day when I

spoke and used as an example the Gang Ranch, which is in my riding. I

believe it is the largest cattle ranch in the British Empire. They were

forced to reduce the herd....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I don't want to hear from you, Mr. Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). You won't even build a road up to the Gang

Ranch. They're pulling through there tonight with tractors to get the

cows out of there. Your government dictated they had to get out because

you wouldn't give them a range permit. They're in there tonight pulling

them out with their own crawler-tractors — there are no Highways people

there helping them resolve this problem.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, get in your own seat and I can get after you.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, getting back to the Gang Ranch, I wasn't happy with the fuzzy answer I

[ Page 649 ]

got from the Minister of Agriculture the other day.

He said the Gang Ranch made a wrong decision in not cultivating the

land they had. They'd have cultivated thousands of acres if they could

have been assured that they would have got range in the summertime.

Is the Minister of Agriculture suggesting that they feed their

cattle the year round? Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture,

you know how uneconomic that is. But the facts of life are, regarding

that ranch and many others — the Gang is only the first one that this

government has moved on — they've asked them to cut down. The Minister

of Agriculture hasn't done this, but I'm bringing it to his attention.

That Minister of wood chips over there that's never in the House,

dictated through the forestry division, the grazing division, that they

would have a permit this year for 2,000 less head of cattle.

I think the Minister of Agriculture should lean on that Minister and

tell him he's wrong, completely wrong. They can raise all the feed they

want to raise, but they also want Crown range.

I'm going to close here very shortly, Mr. Chairman. I want to get at

this Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and relate to the

Minister of Agriculture how he's getting a shafting from that Minister.

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister is going to put the

whole province into park reserves or wildlife reserves and we're going

to end up in British Columbia here in five years eating porcupine pie?

All there'll be left to eat are porcupines and grizzly bears.

I suggest to you that the citizens of this province don't want to

eat porcupine pie because the quills will stick in the mouth — in the

roof of their mouth — and they'll really scream about that from your

riding, Mr. Chairman, and his riding, Vancouver South.

But from the direction we're going, that's what's going to happen.

All there'll be left to eat in this province, unless the Minister of

Agriculture not only leans on him but stomps on him.... There's no

range for the cattle; the ranges are all left for the grizzly bears and

the porcupines. We're going to end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this province

want to eat beef. They don't want to eat porcupine and grizzly bear.

At the point in time we are at now, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of

Recreation is going to have the whole country in a porcupine and

grizzly bear reserve. (Laughter.) I attended a meeting....

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I'm just getting them on now. I attended a

meeting of the agriculture committee last summer in the great town of

Williams Lake, and one of those environment kooks that's paid by the

Department of Recreation got up there, and do you know what he said to

the cattlemen? Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, what he said to the

agriculture committee. He said, "If your cows arc getting bothered by

the grizzly bears, get the cows the hell out of that range." That's

what he said.

Well, how ridiculous can we get, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

So, I leave you on that, Mr. Chairman. If you want porcupine pie and

grizzly steaks — and I've eaten both, in lieu of beef — if this

Minister of Agriculture doesn't get up and whomp that Minister of

Recreation and that woods sawdust Minister over there, the Minister of

Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams), that's what we're going to be

eating.

Thank you for listening.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

I'd like to reassure the Hon. Member for Cariboo that Mrs. McQuiston's

chickens at 100 Mile House will not be going hungry tonight. It has

been brought to the attention of the poultry commissioner who has made

available alternate sources of supply. So the chickens are fed tonight,

you needn't worry about that.

The farm, truck and tractor insurance costs — I'm sure now that the

Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has heard your remarks and

it's likely he'll take this into account. Perhaps you'll have an

opportunity to ask him yourself later in the debate.

It's true, when I was asked in your riding by people who said they

had some difficulty in communicating their questions to you in getting

some kind of a reply, that they could write to me as the Minister, or

they could contact Ron Anderson locally. Your question was: is he on

the payroll? He is not on the payroll. Your second question was: how is

he living? That's his business. I should not be asked to answer that

question.

This advice is not all that unique. I have a newspaper report here

of one MLA for Victoria, Newell Morrison, referring to himself as the

only Vancouver Island Social Credit Member in the Legislature and

urging particularly the people in the Cowichan-Malahat constituency to

write him or phone him considering government policy questions — that

they'll get better answers presumably from him than they would from

their own MLA. Now they may feel that way....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, the question only came up when your

constituents said they were having some difficulty in getting

reasonable service from you. I suggested, well, that there are

alternatives to consider.

Questions with respect to Bill 42 I have noted and will reply to

when we get to vote 8. Questions with respect to rangeland I have

already commented on,

[ Page 650 ]

and no doubt you'll have an opportunity to put them again as well to the Minister in charge of grazing.

MR. FRASER: I intend to.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, it's difficult

to follow the Marshal and Chester, Mr. Chairman. However, I see from

the British Columbia Department of Agriculture immediate news release

of January 23, 1974, that,

"The bull-testing programme at the B.C. Beef Cattle

Test Station at Tranquille is now back to normal after an unusually

troublesome initial period, says B.C. livestock commissioner, Al Pelter.

"The programme consists of a 28-day adjustment period

followed by a 140-day test. The test is generally broken down into five

periods of 28 days apiece."

And it continues.

"During the first of these periods in this year's

tests, which started in October, a respiratory problem appeared in the

test animals and seriously affected their rate of gain."

I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if he is sure that this was

really and truly a respiratory problem, and if so, how did it come

about?

Secondly, I notice in the British Columbia Gazette ,

dated February 19, which was delivered on my desk this afternoon, that

the government has apparently entered into a guarantee with a company

known as South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., and Lakeview Credit Union, and

wherein the government — the Minister it refers to — proposes to become

a shareholder of that company and to buy some 277 preferred shares. And

apparently the government will be guaranteeing $1.5 million for the

purpose of a plant and facilities of this company in Dawson Creek. I'm

asking the Hon. Minister: what exactly is the business of this company?

Have there been any economic projections taken by the department as to

the viability or otherwise of this proposed project? What is the

financial reason, or other reason, for this commitment of the

government for this project?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect: bull testing, vote 5; South Peace dehy, vote 7.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think the Hon. Minister can answer these

now — there is the possibility that he might be out to lunch, or down

the street, or doing other things in the hall during these particular

votes. There's no reason why you can't answer that question now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of....

MR. GARDOM: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is not on his feet, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You sat down once. I thought you were finished.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I was still speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to continue?

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much. I'd like to. Jack, we'll be

with you in a jiffy, okay? (Laughter.) Alex didn't mean everything he

said. (Laughter.)

Well, I can ask the Hon. Minister these questions and he can answer

these questions right now. You know, the Hon. Minister has put off for

three days questions on other matters that are extremely more serious,

going to the very root of the government process. I think that perhaps

we are going to have to have answers to those questions before his vote

goes through, and I think it would be a good thing if he answered these

too. You can't rely on Hansard for this one, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The general conduct of the department is

answered under the Minister's salary, and that's what I have been

trying to do for the last three days. Specific questions with respect

to specific programmes are more properly handled under the specific

votes for the department.

MR. GARDOM: But you are refusing to answer tonight, is that it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not refusing to answer tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Well then, answer.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No. I am simply saying let's get on with it tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Why don't you answer the question then?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's get on with it tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Well, answer the question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I will when we get to vote 5.

[ Page 651 ]

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks to the statements made

by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). He stated that this government

has reduced the grazing permits to Gang Ranch from 9,000 to 7,000 head

of cattle. I would like to remind this Member, especially because it's

in his own area, that the Gang Ranch sold to Riske Creek approximately

one-quarter of their holdings, and this is where the reduction of the

permits came in.

MR. FRASER: You made them sell! Strong arm Woody Woodpecker did. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: They did not have to sell, and you know very well.

Now yesterday and today statements were made about the Fish and Wildlife Branch....

MR. FRASER: Woody Woodpecker did it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Statements were made, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: May I have some order, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, now.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Will the Minister continue?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday and today statements were made by that Member there that

the Fish and Wildlife Branch were taking over excessive grazing in the

province.

MR. FRASER: Sure!

HON. MR. RADFORD: This is totally untrue. And he was trying

to say that there was conflict between the Department of Recreation and

the Agriculture department. I would like to inform the House that the

Department of Agriculture and the Department of Recreation and

Conservation are working together as never before in this province.

For instance, last year in the Creston Valley wildlife management

area, Mr. Chairman, the branch, realizing the seriousness of the

situation of lack of grazing, gave permits to graze 600 head of cattle

for three months on the Lewis unit in that area. In addition to this,

400 head were also permitted to graze on other areas in the management

area, and 250 tons of alfalfa hay were given to the farmers who were in

distress in that area.

In my speech the other day I mentioned about the three units we took

over in the east Kootenays. I also related that these units will not be

managed to the exclusion of cattle, rather cattle will be accommodated

on certain areas and hay and alfalfa available for harvest will be made

available to the neighbouring ranches.

MR. FRASER: What about the hunters shooting cattle?

HON. MR. RADFORD: In this, as in all of our other programmes,

true to the concept of multiple-use, the benefits of good planning will

be shared by all resources and this includes agriculture.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): We're not on your estimates.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Minister that you are supposed to be discussing vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: All right, but I'm discussing the remarks that that Member made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please confine your remarks to vote 3.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order. Your turn is coming.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Okay. The point I would like to make to the

House is that the conflict that was between these departments in the

past is no longer there, Sure, we have some disagreements, but they

have been overcome, and we're looking forward to more co-operation with

the Agriculture department. We've also met on the predator control

situation, which has never been done before.

MR. FRASER: You and Woody Woodpecker overruled agriculture.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Further programmes are taking place, as I

mentioned before, in the Vanderhoof area between Agriculture and

Recreation and Conservation.

As far as the grazing goes in the Kootenays, which the Member was

talking about, domestic cattle and wildlife are compatible, and you

should know this, of all people.

[ Page 652 ]

MR. FRASER: We don't even know what a cow looks like in the Kootenays.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order? I want to remind you again you are supposed to confine your remarks to vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, I just want to make a few remarks and then I'll sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make your remarks to Agriculture, vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The only remarks that I want to end with,

Mr. Chairman, are that there are no longer those conflicts that were

prevalent in the past between these two departments.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, if

I can carefully steer a path between the porcupines and the

woodpeckers, I'd like to come back to the chickens. (Laughter.)

This afternoon I asked the Minister a question which quite possibly

he lost sight of in view of the many notes he was taking this

afternoon, or perhaps he was going to take time over the dinner hour to

consult with his deputy to get the answer to this particular question.

The question, if I may remind the Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, was the question of whether the Minister would undertake to

report to the House, upon consultation with his deputy, whether or not,

in fact, his deputy did indeed speak to Mr. McAninch and Mr. Stafford

in the terms that they reported in their affidavits that I mentioned

earlier on this afternoon, which in ways seemed to directly contradict

the words of the Premier with respect to the broiler matter on February

26. As I say, the Minister seemed to overlook that in his replies to

questions this afternoon. I wonder if he would have an answer now.

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

discuss something that possibly, Mr. Chairman, you might not figure is

under the Agriculture vote, but since the Minister of Agriculture

should be concerned with rural electrification, and since the Minister

of Agriculture is on the Treasury Board, and since I require assistance

from the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to just say a few words

about rural electrification.

Certainly if rural electrification doesn't come under the Department

of Agriculture or some part of it, or if the Minister isn't concerned

with it, well he should be. I will keep my remarks very, very brief

because I realize probably I'm on thin ice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a separate vote on that issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the particular vote you are talking about, I might not be able to get the commitment I am after. I promise to be brief.

My point is this, Mr. Chairman: the subsidy of this government to

B.C. Hydro for rural electrification has been functioning very well for

a number of years. It was a good measure when it was brought in.

However, due to inflation, and specifically due to increased costs, a

lot of which have been brought in by the Public Works Fair Employment

Act, the formula has fallen very, very far behind. I would like to ask

the Minister of Agriculture if he would, with me, go and talk to those

directly involved in the cabinet who lay down this formula to B.C.

Hydro to ask for a revision in that formula.

The formula is outdated today and it is outdated for more than one

reason. It is outdated not only because of inflation but because those

areas in the province which have not previous to this time been served

under that subsidy are the more remote areas. They are the areas that

just couldn't seem to fit in under the formula. The spread is growing

broader and broader. Those areas presently served under rural

electrification can't take advantage of the subsidy. I am sure the

Minister of Agriculture would want to help me bring those people under

this umbrella.

They are the people today who are doing the very things this

government want them to do: they are bringing the marginal lands, the

far-out lands, the lands far away from the main highways, the lands

away from the developed areas. They are really the pioneers of today;

they are the people whom we should be subsidizing; they are the people

whom we should help. Am I not right, Mr. Member for Cariboo?

MR. FRASER: You're right.

MR. PHILLIPS: The second thing that I should like to ask the

Minister of Agriculture is: would he change the ALDA Act to allow the

rural electrification to come under that Act and so that farmers can

borrow money through the ALDA Act to wire their farm homes, to wire

their barns, and indeed to pay for their costs of sharing the lines to

get power to their area.

I have a situation in my riding — and I am sure many of the other

Members here tonight who serve rural ridings have similar situations —

known as Lone Prairie. Out in Lone Prairie they have 32 souls, 32

pioneers, 32 farmers who are trying to bring that area into production

to produce food for the starving world. They need help.

On that line, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams), are seven miles of that line through Crown

property. You

[ Page 653 ]

should assist them; you should at least pay, Mr.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I am pleading with the

Minister of Agriculture to go to you and to ask for your assistance.

Both of us will come if you will just pay for the clearing and the line

that goes over the seven miles of Crown land. Those 32 individuals out

there are hewing and chopping down the trees. No, I shouldn't say that.

But they are reclaiming this land out of the raw to bring it into

production, the production of food that maybe some day you will want to

eat, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I beg the Minister of Agriculture, I beg for his assistance to plead

on behalf of these 32 farmers in that Lone Prairie area, to assist them

to get that power line.

This isn't the first time I have spoken in this House about that. I

spoke about it last year. The spread is getting further and further

because inflation is going up. The price of their produce is going up

because they are still trying to bring into production their farms.

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

Agriculture, are you going to help those people? Are you going to help

those great souls up there in the Peace River country to get that power

line? Are you going to go to cabinet? Are you going to go to Treasury

Board? Are you going to go to B.C. Hydro and try and renew that

formula? Get it for those great people up there. If you don't, no one

else will go into the wilderness. We should assist those people to help

bring land under cultivation. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, will you

assist me? Please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Well, if you are patient long enough, Alex, everything happens in good time. Home on the range.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few points I would like to raise at this

time on the estimates of the Minister with regard to the vote for

Agriculture, things which I touched on briefly before but want to get

back to in more detail at this particular time.

Earlier, when I was speaking on the Minister's estimates, I asked

him about the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. He indicated

later on in a reply that certain funds are now available to help get

this programme underway in the Province of British Columbia.

I would like to quote from a press release from the Minister's own

office, dated October 16, 1973, when he was commenting on this Farm

Products Industry Improvement Act. It says, according to this release,

that, "The purpose of the Act is to encourage and assist the continued

development and expansion of secondary agricultural enterprises by

extending credit in several ways." Then it goes on to list some of the

ways in which credit can be obtained. "The Act allows the government to

guarantee loans from banks and credit unions and, in special

circumstances, give loans and incentive grants to secondary

agricultural enterprises." There is also a suggestion that the Act

allows the government to invest and hold equity in agricultural

enterprises.

The thing I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister at

this particular time is a problem facing small industry in the North

Peace area; small in relation to many industries in the province but

large in relation to the commitments of one particular individual. The

industry I am referring to is a small packing plant that opened up

about two years ago on an individual basis by one, Mr. Carl Armbuster,

called Superior Wholesale. This man invested a lifetime of hard work.

Every dollar he had went into enlarging and expanding his premises.

He was encouraged to do that by officials of the provincial government,

by the Industrial Development Bank, and by the farmers and ranchers of

the Peace River area who felt that if he enlarged his premises and was

able to put in a first-class modern packing plant operation, even

though it was a fairly small one in comparison to Edmonton or Calgary

or wherever, he would be doing a great service for the people of the

province and particularly for the people of that area of the province,

Fort St. John.

This man invested close to $100,000 of his own money. That was every

penny he had saved during a lifetime of hard work as a butcher. Every

penny he could lay his hands on, including a mortgage on his house, for

everything that he could get went to get this plan into operation.

Now, I'm not suggesting the problems that he has run into since

trying to operate and open that plant are altogether the problems of

the Minister of Agriculture or people within his department. But

certainly, when he asked for help, very little was forthcoming either

from the provincial government or the federal government.

The only thing the federal government did was allow him to borrow

through the Industrial Development Bank at exorbitant interest rates

for that type of business, enough money to get him so far in the red

that there is no way he will ever be able to properly equip that plant

properly, get it into operation and pay off that debt. As a matter of

fact, the Industrial Development Bank has now threatened foreclosure on

this particular operation.

It is a small business; it employs about 12 or 14 people on a steady

basis. It takes cattle from the surrounding ranchers and farmers. There

is a great concern that for many reasons, perhaps some of them poor

judgment on the part of the man himself, this business is going to go

down the drain.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Minister, there's expertise and advice from people in your department, including

[ Page 654 ]

the Department of Health — which has done nothing

but harass the man since he first started to operate — that he could

call upon to help get that business going on a profitable basis.

Some of the problem is the premises itself, as I understand it; it does not pass the health standards in certain respects.

This poor fellow has spent most of his life in a business that he

knows well. Everyone will admit that he knows how to buy and dress

cattle, and he's an excellent butcher. He may not be quite as adept in

the business world, but he spent a lifetime and put every dollar he had

into that particular operation. At the present time he stands to lose

everything. He's not a young man; he's at an age when most people would

be considering retirement. But he's a hard worker and he always has

been.

I would hope that through the advice and perhaps the help of this

particular Farm Products Industry Improvement Act the funds that are

required, and I don't think it's a great deal of money, would be made

available to that small industry, so that he could modernize his plant

or do whatever the Health department and all the federal authorities

and everybody else desire, to bring it up to a standard where he can

get federal inspection.

If he doesn't, he's going to go down the drain. The plant will be of

absolutely no use to the farmers and ranchers of that area who wish to

sell their meat locally, and all the employees who work for him will

have to look for employment elsewhere. I know it's not an easy problem

to solve, but there must be a solution, because he has the nucleus

there of a good business. He may need some help and advice on business

problems, and certainly at the present time he needs assistance in the

form of additional capital so that that plant can be brought up to a

standard where he can get federal inspection.

As I said when I first started to speak, this man has run into

nothing but one roadblock after the other. He doesn't seem to have

received anything but harassment from the departments that have dealt

with him. He's at an age when he shouldn't have to face that, and yet

he wants to be productive and build a small business enterprise.

Now, he had a small packing plant before that was very successful.

It was only when he was encouraged to expand that he got into all these

problems with regard to the type of plant that he should build and the

equipment that it would require for him to get federal inspection.

I know the Minister is aware of this problem. He's had letters from

the Farmers' Institute in Fort St. John and from other people who are

concerned about the enterprise. Surely there's a way to salvage that

business so that he doesn't lose a lifetime of hard work and the people

of the Fort St. John–North Peace area will be able to continue selling

their cattle to a local market.

At the present time, as the Minister well knows, all of that beef

that is grown and finished in that area goes to Edmonton to a packing

plant and then is shipped back to be consumed up there. You have the

problem of shipping the live beast out to a packing plant and shipping

the carcasses back. So you have freight both ways when it's not really

required.

Certainly he could take a fair number of cattle and hogs and process

them each week to that packing plant. With federal inspection he'd be

able to supply not only the immediate area but project his sights into

the market which is north of us, the Fort Nelson and Whitehorse area,

and compete with Edmonton operations on an equitable basis. I would

hope that the Minister, when he's considering secondary industry in the

Province of British Columbia, would give the assistance of some of the

expertise he has available in his department to this particular small

operation in the northern part of the province.

I'd like also to suggest to the Minister that perhaps some of the

funds available under this particular Act would be made available to

veterinarians who wish to establish clinics in areas like our own. As

the Minister knows, there is a great shortage of veterinarians in the

Province of British Columbia, and those that are available, like many

professional men, prefer to locate in areas other than northern B.C. —

the central part of the province or northeastern B.C.

We are fortunate in that we do have an excellent veterinarian in

Fort St. John. The reason that he's operating in that country is that

he was raised there as a boy and grew up in the north and he's familiar

with conditions, but he's literally running himself to death trying to

accommodate the many hundreds of requests that he gets each month for

his services.

One of the things that would make his job a little easier would be

the establishment of a clinic in the Fort St. John area — a building

where he could suggest to the farmers that when they had a problem they

load those cattle that were well enough to be hauled into the back of a

pick-up truck and bring them into him rather than have him travel

hundreds of miles each week, accommodating farmers in first one part of

the Peace River lot and then another spot 150 miles away.

I think that this sort of a programme should be extended to help a

man like that establish a clinic so that his services would be

improved. He would be able to improve his services to the people of the

area and he would also be able to accommodate many more farmers than he

can at the present time.

I'd like to make one other suggestion regarding veterinary services

to the Minister of Agriculture, and that is that when we do find

students who are interested in going into veterinary college, the

government should make available to these students scholarships or

grants, or some financial assistance, so

[ Page 655 ]

that they can conduct themselves through university without undue financial hardships.

We don't have the faculty available to students in the Province of

British Columbia, so they must go elsewhere, and that may be the case

for some time to come. But if that is the case then surely we could set

up some sort of a programme to help students who are interested in

attending veterinary college to get that education. Hopefully they then

would return to the Province of British Columbia and be available to

one or other of the parts of this province.

There's a problem in every part of the province — and I suppose that

it's also a problem in the Peace River country — with land erosion,

particularly on the river flats adjacent to the Peace River.

Because of the opening up of that country in the last 10 years, it's

not unusual now for a small water run to start in the spring of the

year, Inside of two or three years that small water run that ran across

some of those large alluvial flats adjacent to the Peace becomes

canyons — and I mean canyons, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Many of them are 50-60 feet deep and 100 feet wide now, running right

through the best farmland that you will find in the Peace River country.

These farmers have, from time to time, come to the Department of

Agriculture to find out if there could be some assistance available to

them to at least channel that water off, or by one means or another

prevent its erosion. They have been bounced from Agriculture to the

Department of Lands, to the Water Resources Service, to the federal

government, and then back again. As a result, really nothing is ever

accomplished. I would hope that the Minister would give us some

indication of his particular policy in this respect.

If he does not consider this a responsibility of the Department of

Agriculture, then who in the provincial government is responsible for

this problem, and who should they take their problem to?

I agree that it's one of those things that comes about as a result

of a heavy rainfall at certain periods of the year, but that does not

help solve the problem for the poor fellow who could not begin to pay

for the damage that is done to his land by soil erosion in those

particular areas.

This was not a problem, Mr. Minister, 20 years ago, because of the

fact that the high plateau lands of the Peace had not yet come into

agricultural production, and the number of trees that were there held

back most of the water, so that it was a slow flow going down the

ravine and across that flatland.

That's not the case today because most of that land is now in

agricultural production. Part of the problem was probably brought about

by bringing that into agricultural production. Regardless of that, that

land is prime, first-class agricultural land and it should be

maintained as agricultural land.

It certainly does no good to allow these great streams to come down

through the land and erode it to the point where it creates great

problems to farmers in that part of the country. There's not a great

number of them, but in places that it has caused damage, the damage is

severe.

The Minister, while he was speaking during his estimates, indicated

that the feed freight assistance would be continued until the end of

March, I believe he said. Am I correct, Mr. Minister?

May I suggest that you don't be too arbitrary on that date because

of the fact that there is a great deal of snow in the areas that wish

to purchase feed this year, as well as in our own particular part of

the country where we have, in some instances, feed to sell — baled hay.

At the present time, many of the farmers who have hay cannot get out to

the fields to get it out, and the people who might wish to buy it, of

course, can't get in to take delivery of it.

The thing that would be most helpful, I suppose, is a Chinook. But

if we don't get that, there's going to be a lot of snow to go, and it

could be very slow going in the spring.

I realize that the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is concerned

about the quality of the hay that his farmers have bought, or that his

ranchers have bought from the Peace River country at certain periods of

time. I suggest to the Member that I'm sure that the ranchers in the

Cariboo have had some experience in buying hay from one place or

another for a good many years. If they can't horse-trade with the

farmers from the Peace River and come out to an equitable position,

then I don't know what's wrong with them.

MR. FRASER: The Minister got all the mineral rights, that's what happened.

MR. SMITH: But I can suggest that if this is a problem, and I

suspect that in certain cases it is, then perhaps some system of

inspecting the hay before it leaves that particular part of the country

should be instituted.

It's not altogether the fault of the farmer who grows hay that his

crop does not come up to high-quality standards. Weather conditions

have a lot to do with it. If the hay is taken off at a time when the

weather looks good and the rains come down and so on, we can get a real

problem in curing and turning out a top-quality product.

Regardless of that, I think there is a way to solve the problem. No

one in the Peace River country likes to be accused of shipping poor

quality goods to any other farmer or any other rancher in any other

part of the country. But if it is the best that is available at this

particular time, it certainly beats trying to feed the cows chips and

sawdust.

Anyway, I would just like to deal with one other particular problem before I take my seat. That is the

[ Page 656 ]

matter of weed control under the Weed Control Act,

which was introduced by the Minister at a previous session. Over the

last 10 years particularly, weed infestation in the Peace River country

has become a serious problem. It certainly is more serious now than it

has ever been before and particularly it is a continuing problem to

those farmers and people who are engaged in the production of forage

seeds and grass seeds and certified seed grain.

As the Minister well knows, there is a tremendous market for Peace

River-grown grain, for Peace River-grown fescue and alfalfa and clover

and forage seeds. But some of the farmers, to my regret, are not as

careful as they should be in keeping the noxious weeds out of their

fields — while the farmer adjacent to him may be growing the type of

forage seed that would go to world markets.

So I would hope that we would be able to tighten up somewhat on the

inspection process in my particular part of the country, and that the

people who own land, but are not very co-operative about getting rid of

noxious weeds, have the problem brought more forcibly to their

attention. They're a detriment not only to themselves but to the

farming area that surrounds them.

The other thing that I would like to suggest to the Minister, with

regard to weed control in the Peace River area, is the fact that

somehow along the rights-of-way for roads, highways, pipelines and

Hydro installations and power lines we must find a way to control the

weeds that the farmer himself does not have the ability to control.

There's nothing that is more aggravating to a farmer than to be

faced with the fact that while he does a good job of tilling his own

land and maintaining weed control to the best of his ability, a

pipeline or a right-of-way, a road or powerline, or whatever, adjacent

to him continually is allowed to run wild with respect to the

reproduction of noxious weeds.

It's not his responsibility to go out there and plough down those

weeds and look after those rights-of-way, be they either for road,

pipelines or Hydro, but they certainly infest his land if that

particular problem is allowed to continue. I would hope that the

Minister would take that into consideration because there is a great

market for specialized crops, that can be grown in the Peace River

country, throughout the world.

The last thing we want is to be known as an area that is so weed

infested that the cereal grains and crops and the grass seeds will no

longer find a market throughout the rest of the world in places where

today we have developed a substantial market.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Minister, I would like

to go back to some of the questions I asked you earlier this afternoon,

and that's on the use of the fair employment practices Act in

agriculture. You assured me of something that I'm already aware of:

that the majority of people now working in packing houses and in the

office facilities of the fruit industries are members of unions.

I know this and you know that. But you know what I want to know, and

you know what the producers want to know and that is: are you going to

extend the tentacles of that Act into the actual area of production? Is

your Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) going to come about and say

that employees in orchards, employees in stockyards, employees on

cattle ranches are going to have to be members of unions if in fact

those producers are going to take

part in income-assistance programmes

and also in some assistance in the form of secondary industrial

development?

That's the assurance I want from you tonight: that neither you nor

your government will interfere in any way with the right of the farmer

to employ his labour where he can get it on the basis of quality and

that he won't be tied to exorbitantly expensive programmes which he

can't possibly meet.

Just as an aside, I'd like to ask the Minister what his views are on

the development of housing for farm workers. This is something he has

indicated in the past that he is interested in. I would just tell the

Minister there is no way at the present time that the agricultural

industry in British Columbia, in the fruit and vegetable area, can

possibly afford to be responsible in any way, shape or form for housing

for its employees.

I'd like to talk for a minute about transportation. As you are

aware, there is a tremendous backlog — thousands and thousands of boxes

of apples are backlogged in the Okanagan because of the lack of boxcars

to transport this fruit. Some of it is being trucked down over the line

to be put on American lines, but this is a very costly and

unsatisfactory situation. Once again, it erodes the return to the

producer. What has the Minister actually done this season at this time

to solve this problem?

This fruit is on line now. If a good deal of it isn't sold within

the next month, it's a dead loss because it cannot be stored any

longer. Perhaps the Minister would say not that his officials have

contacted someone, but tell me how many times you have talked to Mr.

Sinclair, the head of the CPR, and Mr. Harold MacMillan, head of the

CNR, about getting boxcars into this area.

I would remind the Minister that one of the few times in the history

of the federal parliament that a matter of urgent public business was

acknowledged was a few years ago when there was a dock strike in

Vancouver at the time the Okanagan apples were coming on line. The

federal government considered it important enough to stop parliament to

see that the

[ Page 657 ]

fruit moved. We would like to know how important

you consider it here in British Columbia to move the fruit sitting

there now, and to assure in the future there will be sufficient

facilities to transport it.

On the matter of moving this fruit crop: When the Minister was in

the opposition, he had great thoughts about a school lunch programme

involving B.C. produce. I think everyone in the House would support

such a programme. I would like to know if at this time the Minister has

met with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and if you have

entertained an idea of an apple lunch programme in our British Columbia

schools now to help sell the present crop that is in storage. It was a

bumper crop, and a crop for which there is serious concern that a

market can be found.

There are, I think, 500,000 students — and that's a lot of apples.

If we could have a co-operative programme — and I think one has to

recognize that apples are an acquired taste — but if even half these

school children were eating apples three times a week in our schools at

this time, it would be very helpful to the industry, and it might even

help their health. It would be of more benefit to them than the potato

chips which are sitting around now.

Again on the fruit industry, I'd like to ask the Minister about his

plans for climatology studies. As the Minister is aware, there are vast

acreages of agricultural land in various parts of the province — I'd

like to speak particularly about the Okanagan — that are frozen as

agricultural land. A good deal of this land is not suitable for any

type of crop production which we can produce in the Okanagan. Many of

these so-called good producing orchards are, in fact, divided as to

their productivity by climatic conditions and soil conditions.

I'm sure, if not the Minister, many Members have been on orchards;

certainly, I, living there, have been on many of them where perhaps the

top half of the orchard will produce on the basis of soil capability

and climate, but the bottom half of the orchard won't. This land is

frozen, yet the Minister is talking about making loans on the basis of

unit size, on the basis of full-time employment in the production

industry. And the government is freezing land on this basis. This

simply isn't good enough.

It was on line, although cancelled last year, for more detailed

studies of the Canada land inventory Act. This assessment is good, but

the scale is so vast that in an area like the Okanagan it really

doesn't apply in terms of economic usage of land. There must be

climatology studies done right through the province, particularly in

areas where we hope to somehow support an agricultural industry.

I would urge the Minister to give this House a commitment tonight

that there will be climatology studies done in the whole of the

Okanagan Valley this coming year. Such programmes will take up to two

years, but I would suggest the Minister do everything possible to

provide adequate staff so that this type of study could be completed

much more quickly. There is simply no sense in freezing land and

freezing people to land if that land is incapable — of producing

economically.

If you as a Minister are going to impose more and more restrictions

on the producers of this province — which is becoming fairly evident —

then you must be prepared to assume some of the economic

responsibility. We all know of incident after incident where very

well-trained horticulturists have given advice to producers, with the

best of intentions, but weather has intervened or the advice wasn't

what it should have been — perhaps beyond the control of the

horticulturist. But the person who pays is the producer. He pays over

and over again. We see evidence of this in the Fraser Valley; we see a

good deal of evidence of this in the Okanagan.

If you continue to erode their individual rights, sir, then you must

become responsible for your recommendations in economic terms. Those

recommendations should be based on some form of economic analysis.

There is a very interesting point nobody is willing to talk about in

this whole business of agriculture in British Columbia. I would like to

refer specifically to the Okanagan, and I wish the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) was here because she was one of the loudest

to decry the erosion of greenbelts and green lands.

Everybody down in Vancouver likes to look at our beautiful orchards;

they like to look at our nice vegetable rows; they like to look at our

cows roaming the hills. But none of them want to pay for it.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: They certainly don't, Mr. Member.

I'm sorry the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) isn't here because he talked about it yesterday.

It's really time we spoke up in British Columbia and recognized the

fact that in the Okanagan Valley, for example, there is a very select

group of products which can be grown. There is a very select group of

products which can be grown economically. If British Columbians and we

as legislators want these beautiful greenbelts, which they are, in

terms of trees and gardens and ranches, we have to acknowledge that

with the external competition from other provinces in cattle and from

the United States in fruit, and with our rising costs of production in

British Columbia in terms of labour and farm supplies, if we really

want an agricultural industry in these areas, chances are it basically

is always going to be a hothouse industry if these people are to

achieve the same fair return or an equivalent of a fair return as the

rest of the working

[ Page 658 ]

society does.

It is time the Minister of Consumer Services adopted some of her

responsibilities. We've heard almost nothing from her since she

received her portfolio, except a vicious attack on Eaton's, which

wasn't justified and for which she apologized last year, and a vicious

attack on the marketing boards yesterday. There is no one in this House

who wouldn't suggest there needs to be improvements with marketing

boards and that there are going to be frustrations with them in the

future, and that they're not perfect. But to have the Minister of

Consumer Services, whose majority of consumers want to look at our

orchards, stand up and attack our producers, I think is an absolute and

utter disgrace.

I think the Minister of Consumer Services, while she certainly has a

responsibility to see there are fair prices charged, ought to be out

telling the people of British Columbia that they have agreed they want

an agricultural industry in British Columbia and the price of that

industry is either going to be direct subsidization to the farmers or a

fair return in the marketplace from the people in British Columbia.

It's a well-known fact in the fruit industry, for example, that the

people in British Columbia are not prepared to pay the premium prices

for the premium fruit. That fruit product must be exported in order to

get a higher price to try and subsidize the products that go into our

local market.

So let's not cloud the issue, Madam Minister. Let's get down and

talk to the Minister of Agriculture and let's all join together and

face the facts. As I mentioned, in British Columbia, we have said we

want an agricultural industry. As British Columbians, we are going to

have to be prepared to support it.

That means, Mr. Minister, accelerated programmes as well in such

things as climatology. I'd like to know how many programmes you have

slated in this area around the province for this year, and whether you

can accelerate any that are going on in the Okanagan — and I hope all

the Okanagan — to a one-year programme or whether it has to be two

years.

I'd like to just go back to the interest rates on the loans. I

myself find that there's great disappointment, both on my part and the

producer's part, that the basic programmes the Minister is considering

are what he calls "low-interest loans," when you get into any major

size of a loan. Mr. Minister, the producers in British Columbia don't

call 8 per cent a low-interest loan. You either must, Mr. Minister, go

to loans in terms of 4 per cent or you've got to go to a sliding scale

of loan.

If you take a merging dairy set-up, for instance, their quota, which

is going to cost them this year $50,000 or $60,000, can't even be

included in their loan. Then if they have land and buildings which will

amount to about $300,000, they have $360,000 invested, of which $60,000

can't qualify for any assistance. And 8 per cent on a $200,000 loan is

more than the market will bear at this time.

I would ask the Minister to think and think again. If we have

low-interest loans, let's stop kidding ourselves and have low-interest

loans. Or, as I mentioned, let's go on a sliding scale where you start

at 1 per cent or no per cent the first year, 1 per cent the second year

and put these loans on a shorter period of time — put them on a 10- or

a 12-year time and give them two years of forgiveness of the loan in

the middle, which would basically put it on a 10-year pay-back period.

Then what you're doing is building an incentive for the producer to

pay off his loan and not be in debt the rest of his life and not have

his debt far exceed the life of his machinery and equipment and, in

many instances, his buildings. You're making money available for

recirculation for other loans and you're giving him a real assistance.

If you did it on a 12-year basis with a two-year forgiveness clause at

his option, at 1 per cent, it would average out to 4 per cent over 10

years, but your incentive is when it gets up to the twelfth year, when

it's at 10 per cent.

Mr. Minister, a farmer has to have incentive and initiative to be

successful and he's got to be interested. The type of long-term 8 per

cent loan over 30 years doesn't appeal to this personality. As we went

around the province as individuals on the committee we found that — and

I'm sure the Hon. Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams)

recognizes that — when you get younger and more aggressive people into

the industry, as we hope to, they don't want to sit on 30-year loans,

and they don't want to work on a dismal, stamped-in system. They want

some freedom to move.

One of the ways that you can provide the incentive and still

recognize that there has to be some type of controls in production is

in the basis of the money that you make available to a system.

So I would ask from you tonight, Mr. Minister, a commitment that you

will, in your thinking, go to this type of loan and not put so much

heavy emphasis on 8 per cent, 30-year loans.

Just back to the CA storage, Mr. Minister, an 8 per cent loan for

the CA storage is only about 0.25 per cent below prime rate, so that's

no great favour to the producer.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the prime rate?

MRS. JORDAN: It was 8.25 per cent the other day when I checked.

I'd also like to ask for the Minister's actions in relation to

domestic fishermen — fish farmers — in British Columbia. There aren't

many of them and the problem is that they are an independent group of

people who are really not anxious to indulge in government regulations.

[ Page 659 ]

They're doing an excellent job in meeting the needs of the fresh

fish market, but they're neither fish nor fowl, if you'll pardon the

expression, and they find themselves in the position where they're

under the Fish and Wildlife Branch. I wouldn't suggest that they be

removed from this department, because there are biological limitations

in fish production that have to be considered, which is much better

looked after in the Fish and Wildlife Branch, and there's the problem

of distribution of these fish.

What these people need also, Mr. Minister, is the same type of

assistance that we hope you're going to give to other producers in this

province. They need low-term, low-interest — not long-term, but 12-year

term — capital to help get themselves established. It takes at least a

year to build proper spawning beds and then it takes two years to come

on lines from the time they spawn until they're ready for production.

There's quite obviously a good potential market for fresh fish

production in British Columbia and I think we should take advantage of

it.

I'd like to ask the Minister one more question. There's a lady in

our province who doesn't believe in women's lib because she's already

evolved there without any help from anyone, and that is Mrs. Esther

Wood. The last that we heard of Mrs. Wood she was being paid the retail

price for her illegally purchased eggs in the Kootenays, and she had a

lawsuit against one of the employees or the inspectors of the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board. She announced that she would go on importing Manitoba

eggs as long as they were cheaper and she felt like it.

My question to the Minister is: (1) how much money was paid to Mrs.

Wood for her illegally imported eggs at that time, and (2) how much, if

any, money has been paid to her since that time? That would follow

along with how many eggs she has imported into British Columbia since

the settlement. The last point was: did it cost the taxpayers of

British Columbia or the Egg Marketing Board money to buy off the

assault charges against your employees?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I have a very

brief observation — just one point I wanted to pick up. I haven't been

present for all of the debate on the Minister's salary vote, but I

would not like to miss the opportunity to raise the question of the

sheep-killing plant to serve the Peace River area. There was

considerable discussion about this last year when the agriculture

committee travelled. There is the opportunity to move ahead on a joint

venture with the Province of Alberta in establishment of a plant at

Innisfail. I wonder if the Minister has pursued that or if it is in

fact not proceeding at this time.

We were told that that was vital for the Peace River area on both

sides of the B.C.-Alberta border. I'm satisfied that that is the case

if that industry is to survive — for western Canada, in fact, as the

Member suggests.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Minister is going

to get stiff sitting there, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps we can ask....

I'm not going to right now try and assist the Minister with his memory

of events during October of 1972, but I'd like to switch the subject

and perhaps have the Minister recall some of the great speeches that

the Premier made when he was in opposition.

He promised us a programme of selling apples in liquor stores. I

always liked those speeches and I thought the Premier's idea was a

wonderful one.

I'd like to see a nice barrel of apples there in the liquor store so

that grapes are on an equal basis with apples. I know the Premier

wanted that badly when he was in opposition. I'd like a nice, juicy,

red Okanagan apple — if we could just get those in the liquor stores so

that when there was that little choice to be made, maybe people could

reach over and buy apples instead of processed grapes.

Would the Minister tell us if we could look forward to that programme of apples for sale in the liquor stores?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman,

is whether we are any closer this year than before to having a

veterinary college in British Columbia. As I am sure the Minister

knows, it is more difficult to get into veterinary college than it is

to get into medicine. That's true. There is no more difficult calling

to get into in Canada today than veterinarian college, because there

are only three veterinary colleges in Canada: one in Quebec; one in

Ontario; and one in Saskatchewan. There are very few places. As you

know, Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps five places reserved for British

Columbians in the Western Canada Veterinary College. It's impossible

for someone from this province to get into the college in Guelph, or in

the Province of Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can his secretary get in?

MR. McGEER: I don't know — you've got to be a fast runner.

Mr. Chairman, doesn't it seem wrong, when we are attempting to

encourage agriculture in so many ways, that we have a situation where

only five British Columbians a year can get into veterinary college? We

have 80 people getting into medicine, out of about 800 who apply.

Heaven knows how many might be interested in being vets, if they could

only get into a veterinary college.

What I would like to suggest for the Minister to consider, is that a

joint veterinary-medical college be set up at the University of

Victoria. We are going to have to have a second medical school

eventually, and I personally believe that the time should be now. It

requires, a course, a great expansion of animal

[ Page 660 ]

facilities — that is one of the things that a

medical school requires. And while there has never been, to date in

Canada, a joint medical and veterinary college set up, the logic of it

is certainly there because you have to have the same kind of life

science facilities, physiology, bio-chemistry and so on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are debating vote 3.

MR. McGEER: I was debating vote 3; I'm not sure about the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the

people in the opposition side. I was hoping to have not just your

attention, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Minister, but perhaps the

Minister of Transport, because I can remember how proud he was when the

University of Victoria was first established. I can remember him

getting up and saying that his daughter would be in the first

graduating class. And I can remember the Premier getting up and saying

that she must have a very brilliant mother. (Laughter.) It's true, she

does have a very brilliant mother.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the then Leader of the Opposition was a

champion of the University of Victoria. I would like to encourage him

to carry on that enthusiasm and speak, as I have done, in trying to

persuade the Minister of Agriculture not just to set up a college of

medicine at the University of Victoria, which must eventually come....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But, you see, if the responsibility were to be

shared by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in getting a joint

veterinary-medical college established, there would be a terrific

economy in the basic science facilities for both. We'd give a

tremendous opportunity to young British Columbians who are being denied

today. You know, the members of the New Democratic Party have always

spoken about opportunities for people in this province....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You mean there's no difference between a horse doctor and an MD?

MR. McGEER: I only said it was more difficult to be a horse doctor. I just said it was much more difficult, and it's true.

What we want to do is give opportunities to young people. We don't

want to attack the New Democratic Party or horse doctors or the medical

profession. What we want to do is to have an opportunity for people in

this province to study to be vets or study to be doctors. That

opportunity is being denied by governments past and present because

they will not build the educational facilities. The demand for the

graduates is there. The desire on the part of young British Columbians

is there. All that stands in their way, Mr. Chairman, is the

stubbornness of government. So I appeal once more to the Minister and

to his cabinet colleagues — please establish in this province a

veterinary college and another medical school.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request the Hon. Members to confine

their remarks and questions to the present administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture under vote 3.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to pursue my

colleague's remarks on rural electrification. I refer to remarks by the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, in my riding of Cariboo there are

residents there tonight with no electricity, eating porcupine by

candlelight? (Laughter.) I think that this House should get concerned

and particularly the Minister of Agriculture...they are farmers. They

are farmers. I think that....

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Better than eating muskrat.

MR. FRASER: But they are not there by choice tonight, right

at this time when we're sitting here and the Premier's here with his

great big salary — all those Ministers there wining and dining here

with all the light in the world. I have constituents right now in my

riding eating porcupine by candlelight!

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to agriculture and to vote 3.

MR. FRASER: I'm on that, Mr. Chairman. You misinterpret what I say.

I want to emphasize rural electrification. All you fat cats down

here have all got electric power. In my riding there are lots of people

who haven't got electric power, period. And the big problem with

agriculture.... Where'd the Minister go? He went to have some

porcupine. (Laughter.)

In my riding of Cariboo, even with the farmers who have got

electrical power, it's just ordinary power and they need three-phase to

develop agriculture.

[ Page 661 ]

That Mr. Woody Woodpecker, that Minister over there whose side....

In fact, I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), he's here too. They are calling the shots and they won't let

these power extensions go ahead. They let those big bureaucrats at B.C.

Hydro find a million ways why electric power extensions shouldn't go

ahead. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that he should get hold of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister — Woody Woodpecker —

who's on Hydro and get these bureaucrats off these good citizens' backs

and get these hydro extensions going.

The ones that exist in the large plateau of the Chilcotin, the

largest cattle area in this great Province of British Columbia, get

them three-phase power so they can expand their operations.

That Minister of Recreation, he's working against the Minister of

Agriculture all the time. He wants the pasture for the grizzlies and

the porcupines and we're going to end up eating them, Mr. Chairman, if

he prevails. I want to prevail on the Minister of Agriculture to take a

strong hand dealing with these autocratic cabinet Ministers and get the

agricultural picture over.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, he is not getting it over today because

the environment kooks are winning — represented by Mr. Minister Woody

Woodpecker and that Minister over there of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford). They want everything in parks and we're going to

end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine quills. My good friend the

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — I can just

imagine that he'd be on my side if he was here tonight, because the fat

cats he represents won't like eating grizzly bear and porcupine, I'll

tell you that.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Right, dead right. Thanks for your help. As a matter of fact, you're not a help but I appreciate your help tonight.

I can't emphasize more.... I'm disgusted that the Minister took off

when I started to speak, but I'll repeat this speech again when he

comes back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly disappointed

that the.... Oh, here comes the Minister of Agriculture. Maybe the

Minister of Agriculture would like to answer some of my previous

questions, I'll give him the opportunity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's not a case of closure or

declining to answer. In most cases the Members have been asking

questions that are more appropriately answered under a vote. If we're

going to deal with them all under my salary, what would be the point in

having 10 separate votes in the department?

Now there have been a few questions that are not appropriate to any

particular vote, and for those that were asked by Members who are in

the House right now, I'll deal with them.

The questions asked by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) some

time ago were specifically with reference to Bill 42 and the Land

Commission, which is more properly under vote 8. The Hon. Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) repeated a question he has asked

a number of times already and I've said all that I am going to say

about that.

The question raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith)

about the quality of hay out of the Peace River...I'm sorry, he's not

here.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) isn't here.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked a

question about the sheep-killing plant, which doesn't come under any of

the votes as an item, since it's not something really tied in with the

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act either.

The negotiations with Alberta in particular are going along quite

well. The last time I saw the Minister for Alberta at the conference in

January, he asked me then about B.C.'s participation. I assured him

that we were quite willing to participate once we had settled this

question of a transportation differential for the B.C. animals so that

we wouldn't be paying any more than our share of the appropriate costs.

He said that there was no problem in working that out. He was quite sure they were going to....

MR. CURTIS: You'll accept it in Alberta?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, my position from the beginning was

that they would get going on it and we'd go along with it. If they

didn't, well, we might not wait. That's all I have other than questions

that are appropriate to particular votes.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about ALDA?

HON. MR. STUPICH: ALDA comes under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: If this develops what about...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe this can be considered under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, Mr. Chairman, this Minister's

salary...he's in control of all of this, and we have perfect rights in

this House to ask these questions under his salary vote. We want

answers.

[ Page 662 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If this is a specific item

covered by vote 7, then I would rule that the matter should be brought

up at that time rather than under vote 3.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm on my feet. Now how can it pass?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A good question.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Real easy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct some remarks

to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) regarding the

preservation of farmland. My remarks regarding the preservation of

farmland have to do with that area in British Columbia which, as he has

pointed out, is such a small area in British Columbia; and yet every

year I would say that thousands of acres of good farmland are eroded

away by riverland erosion in this province. Since Bill 42, since all

the problems that have been created by Bill 42....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, could I just interrupt for a

moment? That question was raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace

(Mr. Smith). I didn't comment on it at the time because he isn't in his

seat right now. I'll do it now if you like, or wait until he comes back

or whatever he likes.

Simply, my answer is that control of such situations has nothing to

do with the Department of Agriculture. There is a Water Branch and the

question should be directed to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a very, very revealing statement that

the Minister of Agriculture has just given this House. The preservation

of farmland has nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture. That's

exactly what the Minister just said. It doesn't really concern the

Minister of Agriculture.

I've said all along in this House that the Minister of Agriculture

is just really a puppet for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. I said this during Bill 42 and I'm going to tell you, Mr.

Chairman: if the preservation of farmland has nothing to do with the

Minister of Agriculture, how come the Minister of Agriculture brought

in Bill 42? How come the Minister of Agriculture has so much to say

about assessments?

How come the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the Land

Commission Act and yet here, during his estimates, he wants us to vote

him his salary when he stands on the floor of the Legislature and says

"The preservation of farmland has nothing to do with the Minister of

Agriculture"?

I'm going to take my place again, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask the

Minister to please give us his views on what can be done, what will be

done, what he will urge to be done, in the Province of British Columbia

with regard to the preservation of farmland along river banks when

thousands of acres every year are being eroded away.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of

Agriculture doesn't consider this his responsibility, then I would

suggest that he is in error and that the whole of Bill 42 and all of

his great statements in this province about the preservation of

farmland are nothing but a farce.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is

not permitted to ask a Minister to influence another Minister in regard

to his responsibilities. The Minister has taken the position that the

land that might be eroded along riverbanks comes under the jurisdiction

of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I would concur in that statement and therefore rule that the discussion on that particular matter is out of order.

On the second point I would quote from Beauchesne ,

chapter 8,

section 239:

"The whole management of a department may be discussed

in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first

resolution of the estimates of that department which reads as follows:

General Administration, amount stated; but the discussion must not be

extended to any particular item mentioned in the estimates of that

department."

That is the point that the Minister was making about ALDA.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, was this authority written before Bill 42 or after Bill 42?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is Beauchesne , fourth edition, page 201,

chapter 8,

section 239.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, is there anything about Bill 42 in that Beauchesne ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The specific item is under the Water Resources Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: What vote?

MR. FRASER: You should direct it to Woody

[ Page 663 ]

Woodpecker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I simply made the ruling that that's the place where it should be brought up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like me to challenge your ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're certainly at liberty to challenge my ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I won't challenge your ruling if the

Minister of Agriculture will stand up and give us his views as to what

he's going to do about riverbank erosion and the erosion of farmland

around riverbanks.

If the Minister will do this, if you'll just give me the

courtesy...and he can't say that he isn't interested in the

preservation of farmland in British Columbia, after him speaking for

hours on Bill 42 — talking about assessments and talking about telling

all the people in British Columbia, all the farmers that he wants to

preserve farmland in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that this matter could be brought

up under either vote 160 or vote 165, but I would think that it would

probably be vote 160. I would make that comment at that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have a few matters to raise with the

Minister, which I believe are of very general nature. I won't offend

against your ruling; at least, I'll try my very best. I also am pleased

that you have indicated to this committee that we should not direct the

Minister to influence another Minister.

All I'm going to ask him to do is please indicate to this committee that he's not going to be influenced by any other Minister.

The Minister shakes his head. Okay, we'll get into this matter about the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you think I should say I'm not going to be influenced by the opinions of other Ministers?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Sure.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You think there should be no cabinet consultations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...when it comes to the preservation of farmland.

When we had that speech from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) tonight, it reminded me, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture.... Neither the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources nor the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

Mr. Radford) are in the House at the moment. Therefore the Minister of

Agriculture is free to confide with the Members of the committee as to

his exact feelings with regard to this subject.

Now, when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources spoke

in the budget speech he told us about certain changes that were about

to take place with regard to the management of resources in the

southeastern part of this province. There was to be a resource manager

appointed to deal with the area, and that resource manager was to have

one specific responsibility among many others, and that was to resolve

the conflicts that there were between competing uses for land in the

area. The competing uses come down quite simply to three: forestry,

recreation and wildlife, and agriculture.

What I want the Minister to do when I sit down, if he please will,

is to stand up and tell the committee the extent to which he is

prepared to preserve agricultural land within the area in southeastern

British Columbia which is to be under the responsibility of this

resource management.

If this Minister is not prepared to conserve the agricultural use of

land currently used in agriculture, then would he please indicate to

this committee whether or not the Government of British Columbia is

prepared to face the cost of relocating those farmers and ranchers who

heretofore have been carrying on agriculture in that area? If there is

one thing that came through loud and clear when the agriculture

committee visited the Kootenays, it was that with the increasing size

of economic ranching units, more and more of the available Crown

grazing land had to be improved and made available to the cattlemen.

When this resource manager goes into the Kootenays, if he decides

that it should be for the moose and the deer and the elk — for which

the Kootenays are justly famous — and not for the cattle, and therefore

the grazing range available is not sufficient to allow ranchers to

function economically, is the government going to buy out those

ranchers and allow them to relocate themselves in other parts of the

province? This is the direct responsibility of the Minister of

Agriculture.

I'm aware that he and the two other resource Ministers, Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), have the joint responsibility in this

regard, but so far as the farmer is concerned, he's looking to the

Minister of Agriculture. I want to know the extent to which this

Minister is standing up against the other Ministers in fighting for the

rights of the ranchers in this particular area.

It is all very well to talk, as the Minister of

[ Page 664 ]

Recreation and Conservation did earlier this

evening, about co-operation. I know when you play with tough kids just

what co-operation means. You co-operate with me or I'll stick the bat

in your ear — that's what it means. "Or similar words to that effect."

(Laughter.)

So I would like to know the extent to which the Minister of

Agriculture is co-operating, because the committee discussed this with

the Minister. We knew a year ago what the Minister's attitude towards

the control of this responsibility was expected to be.

Perhaps when the Minister is at it, he will be good enough to tell

us, in this age of co-operation, why it is that Crown land grazing

permits, which are designed for the use of cattle, have not been moved

to the Minister of Agriculture and out of the hands of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

What is the hold-up? Is there some fear that cattle are to be given

some preference over wild animals? Is that the concern? Is there some

fear that maybe the Forest Service is going to lose some of its control

over a preserve over which for year after year after year it has

exercised, in my view, an improper role of supervision?

When is it going to happen? When is grazing land available for

permit to ranchers — people engaged in the agricultural industry —

going to be placed under the responsibility of the Minister of

Agriculture? If that is not to happen, then maybe you could tell me

when they are going to place the allocation of timber licences under

this Minister and take them away from the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources. That makes about as much sense.

So I'm not asking this Minister to influence any other Minister. I'm

just asking him not to be influenced by other Ministers of the Crown

who have some particular interest in taking away the rights that this

Minister should be responsible for preserving.

On another policy matter, I'm glad that the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is here, because there is a real possibility

of a conflict between these two Ministers and I want to know how it is

going to be resolved. The Members of this committee are entitled to

know how it is going to be resolved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pistols at dawn.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Agriculture, if I

understand his position correctly, is interested in ensuring that the

farmers of this province, in whatever activity they may be engaged, get

a fair return for their investment and a fair return for their labour,

and that farming become an economic enterprise for the first time in

British Columbia.

As one example of this, we have seen, in the past five months — or

in a couple of days we are going to see in the past five months — three

significant increases in the price of milk.

lnterjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four. Thanks very much. Each one of them

was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, and each time the

consumers of this province have been told that the justification for

the consumer price increase in milk was because of the increased costs

at the producer level. That's fair enough. If the Minister is prepared

to assure us that the producer is, in fact, getting more money, then it

is consistent with what I understand his policy to be as far as

economic farming in the province is concerned.

I am concerned as to the extent to which the Hon. Minister of

Consumer Services may interfere with the policies established by the

Minister of Agriculture, and may interfere with the right of the

farmers to receive their proper returns for their investment and their

labour, because she indicated quite strongly in this House yesterday

afternoon that as far as she was concerned she wanted to see the

consumers in this province get a better break, and that can only happen

if the price goes down. Now, if you reduce the price to the consumer,

how are you going to increase the price to the producer? And somehow or

other between these two Ministers....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're on a collision course.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right; they're on a collision

course. We were talking about political interference in government

decisions earlier this afternoon and on previous days, and I want to

know what's going to happen when politics enters into that kind of

battle between the Minister of Consumer Services and the Minister of

Agriculture.

Who's going to win? Is the farmer and his livelihood going to be the

guiding influence, or is it going to be the consumer and the ability of

the consumer to pay?

Of course, there is one other solution that may resolve this

collision, and I would like to hear the Minister comment as to what his

government's policy is in this regard. That is the amount to which all

the taxpayers of this province may subsidize the producers. We already

have in effect in this province for the milk industry a scheme under

the Farm Income Assurance Act, and we've been told by the Minister that

this is going to cost $1 million a month. I'll bet that's a minimum —

$1 million a month.

MR. PHILLIPS: The first three months already cost $300 million.

[ Page 665 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Okay, so the Minister's wrong. It's going

to cost $15 million a year to start. It is speculated that when they

reach the conclusion with regard to the scheme for the fruit growers

this is going to cost about $4 million a year as a cautious estimate.

So $15 million and $4 million is a $19 million subsidy.

Then we've got the cattle people, then the broilers, then the eggs

and the vegetables, and potatoes, and the cranberries and on and on and

on.

When we debated the Farm Income Assurance Act in this House last

fall, the Minister indicated that his department would sit down

commodity by commodity and set up these schemes and how much it is

going to cost. Is this to be the way in which we're to resolve the

conflict in which we are heading between the Minister of Agriculture

and the Minister of Consumer Services in the discharge by each of those

Ministers of their respective responsibilities?

We've got a budget that we're dealing with in this department this

year of only $15 million. Already with two commodities in agriculture

we're going to face subsidies greater than the budget of the total

department. That's just for beginners; that's for openers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That just gets you in the game.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just gets you in the game. And where are

we going to go? I think we are entitled to know from this Minister

whether he is prepared to ensure that the farmer continues to receive a

proper return for his investment and for his labours. I think we're

entitled to know the extent to which the consumer can be expected to

pay a proper price, returning that benefit to the farming community.

We're entitled to know from this Minister to what extent the general

revenues of this province will be utilized in the subsidization of the

producer. We're entitled to know the extent to which this Minister is

prepared to stand up for the responsibilities which fall into his

department against the pressures which he is presently facing and which

he will face in the future from other members of the cabinet, which, if

successful, can only lead to a breakdown of the policies which this

Minister has enunciated for the future of the agriculture in British

Columbia.

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

Smith) is back. He raised some questions about the quality of hay out

of the Peace River, and, as I said, it was the Hon. Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser) who raised the question originally, not me. There were

some problems in quality, but as far as continuing the subsidy

programme, of course, this will be considered. But we're hoping now

that people will make arrangements to get their hay so it will not be

necessary. We hoped that, but the end of February it was found out that

it would have to be extended and we did extend it.

Your other points are better raised under votes 5 and 7.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is back. Is the

Minister of Labour going to insist on farm workers being unionized?

I've heard nothing about it. This is the first suggestion that the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) should even consider that. I think

it very unlikely that that route would be followed. I've heard nothing

about it.

The housing programme for farmers' employees....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Perhaps you better ask him if he's taking

cognizance of this suggestion, and that he should consider it. But up

until now I think it has not even entered his head. It certainly has

not entered mine. Well, when his estimates come up you might ask him

that.

Housing programme for employees: As you'll appreciate, it is a joint

federal-provincial programme. There are grants available and the

provincial.... As a matter of fact I signed a letter today that went to

the Minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing, agreeing to the

provincial government entering further into the programme.

Transportation of fruit from the Valley was quite thoroughly discussed this afternoon in the Legislature.

The school lunch programme: Representatives of my department and of

the Department of Education are considering this, trying to work out a

programme.

MRS. JORDAN: This year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not promising you it will be in effect. I'm hoping it will. But, as I say, they are working on it.

Fish farming is currently under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

The Esther Wood....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to wait until the Minister is finished.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would just suggest to the Members that

when they think there should be some changes in jurisdiction over

various areas of government, the time to make suggestions like that is

really in the throne speech or the budget speech rather than under the

estimates of any particular Minister — the time to make suggestions for

changes.

[ Page 666 ]

There is no harm in advancing at this time, and certainly it is

something that has been considered but not resolved yet. But I just

feel that if you're giving that kind of advice, about changing

jurisdictions, it is better done in the two general debates.

The Egg Marketing Board: I could get that information or you could

get it direct. I don't know how much it cost the Egg Marketing Board. I

don't know how many eggs came in, what the charges were, and I don't

have the information as to.... I know the eggs stopped coming in

because the price of Manitoba eggs exceeded the price of B.C. eggs.

What the current situation is today, I don't know. I've had no reports

on that. I haven't sought them and they haven't been forthcoming.

The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is back. Apples in the

liquor store: The Premier talked on this when he was in opposition you

say. He talked during the campaign and he's talking to me about it

several times since. It's one of the things I haven't delivered for him

yet.

Any closer to a vet college? No. You'll recall — I think this is

discussed in the fall session — I announced a programme where the

federal government was going to put more money into expanding the vet

training facilities in Saskatchewan. You say there are only five places

available for B.C. students. There is a formula that would

theoretically limit us to five, but their real criteria is based more

on the capability of the students. And it happens that perhaps because

they are B.C. students they seem to be above the average, and we've

been getting much more than our minimum quota into that vet college.

The expansion of facility, of course, will provide much more room

for B.C. students. Also we have increased the grant per student for

that college so they will be better able to upgrade their facilities.

The idea of training doctors and veterinarians together has never occurred to me. I didn't note particularly what....

MR. WALLACE: What about the law school?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's something that just hadn't occurred to me. And maybe it's worth looking at or perhaps even partial....

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

is concerned about the resource manager. I'm not sure just how this

theme was developed in the general debate, but it's the responsibility

of the resource manager to bring the people from the various

departments in that area together to discuss what is going on and to

discuss the best way of allocating the resources in that area. The way

you phrased it it sounds as though he was going to make an individual

decision as to what should be done. Rather he's trying to get everybody

together to collectively decide on the best way of using these

resources. It's not a case of that Minister, this Minister and another

Minister having to try to apportion these resources. The resource

manager is in the field dealing with representatives of various

departments including the Department of Agriculture, and trying to

arrive at the best solution to the question of allocating the resources

with respect to....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You can't afford to lose any areas right now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We might get more. I'm not suggesting there

are going to be any losses. But you did ask the question: would the

government buy out? The government has bought two ranches in that area

so far and certainly if the ranches....

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I heard somebody say three, it could be

three. I thought it was two but there might be a third one. In any

case, the answer to the question is yes.

Why not move the range-leasing question to the Department of

Agriculture? It was in Forests; it's being moved. I'm not sure whether

it's finished yet or not — it being moved to the Lands Department. You

say why not to Agriculture? It's a question that I asked as well. And

when the cattlemen, in their organization, recommended it go to Lands

rather than to Agriculture, it rather cut the ground out from under my

campaign.

Now, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I think they did

recommend that it go too. It is being studied. But the B.C. cattlemen's

organization recommended that it go from Forest to lands.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When was that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, last fall.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: They did; when the committee was meeting, they did. Subsequently they recommended that it go to Lands.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not opposed to

the idea of the producers getting a fair break. She wants a fair break

for producers and for consumers, but wants the community as a whole to

be assured that it is a fair break for both parties, and not that

either group is being taken advantage of for the good of the other, if

you like. I think that is one of the things I've tried to indicate

earlier. I feel we need a better PR job, a better explanation in the

total community as to how

[ Page 667 ]

these marketing boards are working, and to prove to

everybody concerned that they are working in the interest of their own

members, also the interest of the consumers. I'm satisfied in my own

mind that marketing boards, properly run, are in the interest of the

consumer and do effectively lower the cost of food to consumers by

evening it out. The Minister of Consumer Services is certainly not

opposed to that.

Your specific questions about the Farm Income Assurance Plan, I

would rather deal with — because there may be others along those lines

— when we get to vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's really unfortunate that you

have to carry on your shoulders the responsibility of an irresponsible

Minister, and I refer to the Minister of Consumer Services who stands

in the Legislature and makes such....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the comment "irresponsible." It's an unparliamentary expression.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll certainly withdraw the fact that

she's an irresponsible Minister. I'll just say she makes irresponsible

statements. I think the Minister has already alluded to that fact.

What I'd really like to know from the Minister of Agriculture is:

when the dairy income assurance programme was being set up, did he work

in co-operation with the Milk Marketing Board? Were they a factor in

determining the cost of production? Were they a factor in determining

what the price of milk would be, what the subsidy should be? Did the

Minister of Agriculture work with this board in keeping down the price

of milk in the Province of British Columbia?

My second question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture is:

to date, how many of the dairy farmers in the Province of British

Columbia are in this programme as compared to the total number of dairy

farmers in the province? What percentage, and what are the numbers?

Would the Minister of Agriculture give me those facts?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, listen. You know....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Why do you think we have a vote 7?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why do you think we...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't come into this Legislative Assembly

yesterday. What do you want me to be seated for? Did I do something

wrong? No reason — just sit down! Would he have a reason to ask me to

sit down?

MR. McGEER: The Chairman wants some exercise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want your undivided attention.

If the Hon. Minister prefers to answer this, as it may be answered,

under a vote which is more appropriate, then I think that the Hon.

Member should respect that wish of the Minister. Therefore, would the

Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. I'd be most happy to continue, Mr.

Chairman, and inform you that I didn't come into this Legislature

yesterday. I've seen this game played before. You give the Minister his

salary and then you get down to the particular vote and, "Oh, you can't

discuss it under that vote; you should have discussed it under the

Minister's salary." We're asking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is questioning

the word of the Minister. The Minister has indicated that he wishes to

answer it under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the humble Member for South Peace

River would like very much to learn the rules of the House. If you tell

me that I can't ask this question of the Minister under his salary,

I'll certainly abide by your ruling. But I want you to stand right up

in this Legislature and tell me that I can't ask the Minister of

Agriculture to answer a question with regard to the administration of

his department, and with regard to the dairy income assurance

programme, that has to do with the Farm Income Assurance Act.

If the Chairman will tell me that, if I'm in error in discussing

this under the Minister's salary, I'll certainly abide by his decision,

because I certainly want to learn the rules of the House — and state

your authority, page and number.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister has indicated that he wishes to

answer the question under the vote where that particular Act is

administered. The Chair is ruling that he should....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm asking it now, and I want an answer now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: And I'll answer it when we get to vote 7.

[ Page 668 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not supposed to question anyone now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think I asked a reasonable question under the

Minister of Agriculture's salary. I think it is a reasonable question.

I think it is a good question, and I'd like the question answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will quote again the

section that I read previously from Beauchesne ,

chapter 8,

section 239:

"The whole management of a department may be discussed

in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first

resolution of the estimates of that department, which reads as follows:

General Administration...but the discussion must not be extended to any

particular item mentioned in the estimates of that department."

That is my authority.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to take your decision under advisement and consult with my colleagues.

In the meantime I'll move on to a further matter which I am quite

sure will come under the Department of Agriculture. As a matter of fact

it's certain recommendations which were passed on to the Minister by

the agriculture committee.

One thing that I would like the Minister to assure me when he does

implement the farm credit Act, is that there will be provisions in the

regulations that he lays down to correspond reasonably well, to be

reasonably close, to the recommendations of the agriculture committee.

The first recommendation of the agriculture committee, with regard

to terms, is that there should be provision for short; intermediate-

and long-term loans with a maximum of 30 years. Will the Minister

assure me that when he lays down his recommendations, when cabinet

discusses this, when he discusses this with Treasury Board, there will

be provision for extended terms of repayment so that the real idea of

the farm credit Act will be realized by the farmers in this province?

Will the Minister assure me that when the terms of credit are

provided, there will be an interest rate well below those that can be

borrowed from chartered banks?

Will the Minister assure me that in certain cases — where, for

instance, a young farmer is going into business and is faced with

extremely high capital costs and no return will be forthcoming for two

or three years until his farm is established — will the Minister assure

me that there will be a deferment on repayment for a period of three to

four years in order that the young farmer may get established?

Will the Minister assure me that young people going into farming and who take out these long-term loans will be life-insured?

Will the Minister assure me that in the case of when he goes to

Treasury Board to discuss these loans, loans will be made available

when farms transfer within a family? I'm referring to a son wishing to

buy out a father in a farm, and not having to wait until such time as

the father is deceased. The farm can then be transferred from the

original owner of the farm; in the case of it being a father, he will

be there to assist the son to develop the farm, to assist him, but at

the same time he will receive payment for his farm.

I would like to ask a further question of the Minister of

Agriculture with regard to another recommendation from the agriculture

committee. That recommendation was that there be a ranch established in

conjunction with the vocational school farm. I asked this question

during the fall session, and the Minister of Agriculture or the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) assured me that this was being

considered.

Well, that's four months ago. Would the Minister of Agriculture tell

me what negotiations are taking place? Because this establishment of a

ranch in conjunction with the Dawson Creek Vocational School Farm is

very important to the beef industry in the Peace River area. Indeed it

is not only important to the beef industry in the Peace River area;

it's very important for the beef industry in the entire province.

As the Minister has outlined, and as it was recommended by the

agriculture committee, the beef industry in the Peace River area held a

great deal of potential. But the area being remote and with great

distances to be travelled, it is very necessary that the farmers in

that area who are going from maybe raising alfalfa or raising grain or

going into the beef industry have some training in the field of

veterinary medicine.

Mr. Chairman, this is very, very important to the overall cattle

industry in the province. It is very, very important to the economy of

the Peace River area. Indeed, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) has asked that a veterinary college be established either

at the University of Victoria or UBC.

Until such time as this is done, and until such time as there are

more veterinarians available within the province, then it would be sort

of.... As I mentioned before, veterinary midwives...they would not be

able to do the entire operation but certainly they'd be able to

administer inoculations, assist in the birth of the young cattle and be

able to determine whether it was necessary to have a veterinarian.

[ Page 669 ]

This would be very, very important to the agricultural education of

young students who want to go into that. It would be very, very

important to the cattle industry in the area, and very, very important

to the grain growing in the area, too. Very important to the budget,

certainly.

So maybe the Minister of Agriculture would give me some indication

as to his thoughts on these five points that I have raised so far.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, I would like

to make a few general statements, then perhaps a suggestion for the

Minister, and then a question that I don't believe has been asked in

the three days of questioning we have had.

First of all, some general remarks in the area of marketing quotas.

It might be wise, for the benefit of those who are new Members in the

House and those who are urban Members, to do a bit of a review on the

creation of quotas and the reason for their distribution. Clearly in

this House there is a misunderstanding about quotas. May I address

myself, perhaps, and look only at the distribution of egg marketing

quotas as opposed to broilers, which is still a different ball game.

There was a reason why the quotas had to be established in the first

place. The problem existed; the fact that quotas came up as the answer

has no suggestion at all that quotas might have been the only answer

and that a marketing board was even the best answer. But it came up as

an answer and was implemented.

The Minister of Water (Hon. R.A. Williams) stood, in one of his

outbursts, and pointed an accusing finger and indicted those who were

responsible for creating the quota system, accusing those who were

duly-elected and who were made responsible for the distribution of

quotas and calling them irresponsible. He said they were parochial and

interested only in distributing quotas for egg marketing in the Fraser

Valley.

He suggested the names of Langley, Clearbrook, Yale and Chilliwack,

and said the reason why they were distributed in those areas was

because it was hotbed of Socreds. Not so. I don't know why the

Minister, unless he had lost control of his senses for the moment,

would make such a statement. The statement, Mr. Chairman, is not true.

The facts are these. There was a problem in the egg marketing

business. The market was flooded; they were producing more eggs than we

or our neighbours or our chickens could eat, for that matter. As a

result, some kind of a plan had to be instigated.

Now, this is what happened. A marketing plan was established and

quotas were distributed to all producers of eggs throughout the

province. That means, Mr. Chairman, that in your area of Terrace all

farmers who were egg producers received a quota which was allotted on

the basis of their production per year, and in your area, Mr. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). The Cariboo, as much as he (Mr.

Fraser) yells about it, had more quotas allotted in the areas of Delta

or Langley or Chilliwack than there were for any other in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. SCHROEDER: So the Minister of water made an irresponsible statement when he said it was a parochial decision. Not so.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right, let me tell you what happened; I'll give you a little lesson, Mr. egg grower.

This is what happened. They found out that it cost more to raise

eggs in Terrace than it does to raise eggs close to where the people

are because there are more consumers of eggs where the people are than

there are in Terrace. As a result, it became impossible for the

producer in Terrace to measure up even to his quota. His quota became

available. He could choose to increase his flock; he could choose to

increase his production; or he could choose to sell his quota, which,

by the way, was not the original intent of quotas at all. He could

choose to sell his quota or to transfer his quota.

Now, a little bit of a basic study in economics tells you that it is

going to automatically migrate to that area where it is financially

feasible to produce eggs.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Hogwash!

MR. SCHROEDER: It happens, and has been proven, that the

easiest place to produce eggs in the province is in the Fraser Valley.

I'll tell you what we can do.

MR. LEWIS: I'll compete with you any day.

MR. SCHROEDER: You can compete as long as there is gasoline for your trucks to haul your product to this area. That's where the problem is.

Now, what is a suggested solution to the problem? A selected

solution is this: you could arbitrarily assign quotas to these other

areas. As a matter of fact, you could subsidize the production in those

areas. But the minute you left it to its own migration, those quotas

would find their way right back down to the Fraser Valley. There is

only one way the whole scheme can be changed. Not only must consumers

be found in those upper areas but also the egg handling stations and

distributors must be located.

I'm glad to see there is a poultry processing plant that is going to be placed up there. It is going to help

[ Page 670 ]

in the broiler industry, but I'm addressing myself to the eggs.

As soon as the processing is also cared for in those areas, then

those people up there have an economic chance of producing eggs in

their areas. Then the quotas which are assigned to those areas will be

filled, they can increase by 10 per cent per year, and the distribution

will look after itself. That's one way to do it.

But I would say there is no way you are going to build happiness

into the egg-producing business by taking a quota from where it is and

transporting it to another location.

Let's take a look at the consumer's market. If there is a greater

market for eggs, let the agricultural department create more quotas and

let them assign those quotas to these upper areas. At least you'll keep

peace in the family.

What we're afraid is going to happen is that they're going to take

quotas from where they are already assigned, rob them from the present

producers, and ship them to some other areas, knowing full well it is

not economically feasible and that before too long those quotas will

find their way right back to their source in the first place.

The NDP doesn't realize this is a fact. They believe in subsidizing.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: You'll get your chance, man. You've made one irresponsible statement; we don't need any more.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: It wasn't intended to be one.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member continue his speech?

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll be happy to.

Rather than stealing the quota from where it has been now assigned

to assign it to a new area, what you could do is what the NDP has been

doing in other areas of our country: they take a product which is to be

produced in an uneconomic area, subsidize it, and believe they are

doing the economy some great favour. But lo and behold, in Manitoba

they've got 11 or 12 different corporations of that sort which in

four-and-a-half years haven't shown one penny profit. What happens?

Belly up is the story. It isn't an answer at all.

Now, back to the question I referred to at the outset. This is the

question I would like to ask the Minister, if he's not in the

building.... Here he comes. Bless his socks, here he comes.

This is the question. One of the statements you have made is that

you enjoy the full confidence of the Premier of the province. Another

statement you have made is this: every project you have presented to

the Premier has met with co-operation from the Premier. You have

suggested to this House that there has been no interference between the

two offices. You have suggested it is not even wise for there to be

pressure between the two offices.

If all of this is true, then let me ask you this one question: why,

or because of