1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1053 ]

CONTENTS

Restraint of Speculation Act (Bill 47). Mr. Bennett. Introduction and first

reading — 1053

Farmers' and Women's Institutes Amendment Act, 1975. (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 1053

Oral Questions

BCR executive resignations. Mr. Bennett — 1053

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1053

Princess Marguerite purchase agreement. Mr. Wallace — 1054

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Curtis — 1054

Case history on Duncan juvenile. Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 1055

Negotiations on Indian lands. Mr. Gibson — 1055

Change of government office locations during civic strike. Hon. Mr. Levi answers

— 1055

Negotiations on Indian lands. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1055

Bridge link between Gulf Islands. Mr. Curtis — 1056

Resignation of John Trask. Mr. Fraser — 1056

Details of Minnekhada stock farm purchase. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers —

Point of order Answers to questions taken as notice. Mr. Bennett —

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

estimates.

On vote 4. Mr. Wallace — 1057

On vote 5. Mr. Wallace — 1077

On vote 6. Mr. Chabot — 1081

Appendix — 1087

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

Members' gallery today is Alderman Gilbert Popovich from Alert

Bay. I would like the House to join me in welcoming him.

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs): On

behalf of the Speaker, I would like to introduce a group of

students from Burnaby South Senior High School and ask the

assembly to give them a warm welcome.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to notify the assembly today that in the

Members' gallery is a well-known Nanaimo citizen, Mr. Graeme

Roberts. Would the House welcome him, please?

Mr. C. D'Arcy (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker,

seated in the gallery today are two distinguished gentlemen

from my riding: Mr. Austin Fraser, commissioner for the

Kootenay Industrial Development association; and the president

of Carefree Design Enterprises Limited, Don Ewing of Trail,

British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome them.

Mr. F.A. Calder (Atlin): In the Members' gallery are

two exchange students from Japan. I would like the Members to

welcome the visitors.

Introduction of bills.

RESTRAINT OF SPECULATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 47, Restraint of

Speculation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

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

sitting of the House after today.

FARMERS' AND WOMEN'S INSTITUTES

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Stupich, Bill 7, Farmers' and

Women's Institutes Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Oral questions.

BCR EXECUTIVE RESIGNATIONS

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Economic

Development: can the Minister, as executive vice-president of the B.C. Railway,

confirm that the chief engineer, Mr. Wakely, has tendered his resignation and,

if so, what reasons were given?

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development):

Although I have my new railway suit on today, I haven't become

completely familiar with the workings of the railway. I do

understand that Mr. Wakely has tendered his resignation but the

details of that will have to await the attendance of the

president of the railway in this House next week.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary: can the Minister also

confirm that Mr. John Trask, general manager of the railway,

has tendered his resignation also?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: I cannot confirm that, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Are you denying

it?

Mr. Bennett: A further supplemental: can the

Minister, as executive vice-president of the railway, and the

only member available to answer questions in the House today,

tell us if the resignation of the chief engineer will have any

detrimental effect on the construction of the Dease Lake

extension in view of his senior position in directing and

constructing this extension?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: It's too hypothetical for me to

answer.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Supplementary.

Would the Minister advise the House if there is any connection

between these resignations and the fact that the annual report

of the B.C. Railway will be, in the Premier's own words, "a

little late this year"?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: To my knowledge, that is not the

case.

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Before the Easter

recess we asked a number of questions concerning Casa Loma,

one of which was the apparent discrepancy between the market

value of the Casa Loma property when it was registered by its

present owners in July, 1973, and the value declared for land

registry fee purposes. I wonder if in the four or five weeks

that have passed the Attorney-General has had the opportunity

of getting the information which he promised to get and having

the inquiry

[ Page 1054 ]

terminated which he did launch.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): We had the

matter investigated. Our officials got in touch with the

declarant, who got in touch with a lawyer, the Hon. T.A. Dohm.

Hon. Mr. Dohm, as he was when he was a judge (and still is),

sent a letter, along with a cheque for $210 to make up a

deficiency in the land registry charges, which the Hon. Mr.

Dohm nevertheless argued in the letter was not properly owing.

The explanation is rather complex and the letter of that

distinguished lawyer states that it can be made available to

Members if you want to look at the letter and see the argument

that he made. At any rate, we have recovered a deficiency of

$210 even though it was paid sort of without prejudice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I would like to thank the

Attorney-General for offering to make available the letter and

perhaps later in the day we will take advantage of that. May I

ask, however, whether the second investigation launched by the

Attorney-General on the Casa Loma affair, namely the fraud

squad investigation of the RCMP, has yet come to the point of

any report?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Nothing to report.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE

PURCHASE AGREEMENT

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): In the absence of the

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

Williams), who appears to be our most recent admiral, could I

ask the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst), who serves as

chairman of an advisory committee regarding the Princess

Marguerite, if the agreement concerning the acquisition of the

Marguerite included the pollution control device which CP had

previously stated would not be available as part of the

sale?

Mr. Speaker: I would have to ask, first, whether the

question addressed to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt is in

respect to some duty he must perform.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the

Member for Esquimalt is chairman of an advisory committee to

deal with the further use and development of the Princess

Marguerite under the directorship or the Ministerial

responsibility of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, who is not in his place today. I felt it would be

quite reasonable to ask the chairman of the advisory committee

for this kind of information.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Members that

you may ask questions to Ministers relating to their departments or, it says

in the rule book, to other Members. But it must concern their parliamentary

duties, and that means duties that are imposed by the House. Now, if he is a

Member of a House committee....

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I don't know this. It is not known to

me.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I will take

that as notice and get the information for the Member.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

Mr. Curtis: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications: with respect to the new service between

Victoria and Seattle, will the expertise departmental staff and

others who have built up a considerable amount of experience in

the operation of vessels in the B.C. ferry fleet be made

available for the Victoria-Seattle service while it is not

within the B.C. ferry operation?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): We all

work very closely together on this side of the House.

Mr. Curtis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm very

pleased to hear that things are rosy and happy. But I asked a

serious question: will the departmental heads and the

individuals who have experience in the operation of a large

fleet — in which the Minister takes justifiable pride —

co-operate and make their knowledge and themselves available

for the Victoria-Seattle service? It's a straightforward

question.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I think it's an unnecessary

question, too. The answer is, of course, that the acquisition

of the Princess Marguerite and the lands was based on the full

information that had been collected by those with expertise in

that field and made available prior to the purchase. That

situation will continue.

Mr. Curtis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it not

unusual to have one vessel which will be operated by the

provincial government excluded from the general operation of

the British Columbia ferry service?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I don't see anything unusual about

that particular situation.

[ Page 1055 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter is becoming

argumentative.

CASE HISTORY ON DUNCAN JUVENILE

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me about a juvenile who had charges

pending in and about Duncan. I don't want to particularly

release the name. I have the history. There's some editorial

comment here. I would like to send the history to the Hon.

Member and ask him to ignore the editorial comment.

NEGOTIATIONS ON INDIAN LANDS

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Minister of Human Resources in his

capacity as responsible for the co-ordination of Indian affairs

for the government. Now that the requested negotiating date of

April 1 on Indian cut-off lands has passed, resulting in

picketing and demonstrations in my riding and other parts of

the province, I'd ask the Minister if he's now prepared to

agree to set a date for the negotiations with the Indian bands

concerned on these cut-off lands.

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Before

the Easter adjournment, I answered a similar question in which

I said that we had met with the committee of the B.C. Union of

Indian Chiefs — myself, several of the cabinet Ministers and the

Premier. At that time, we agreed that we would make a full

report to cabinet. This has not been done, as a result of the

long adjournment, and that is still to be done.

Mr. Gibson: On a supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister say when the cabinet consideration will

happen? This is a matter of some urgency, as he knows.

Hon. Mr. Levi: Well, that will be a matter of making

an arrangement. I can't give a specific date.

CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

LOCATIONS DURING CIVIC

STRIKE

Hon. Mr. Levi: There was a question put to me by the

Member for Oak Bay prior to the recess, in which he asked: is

it correct that employees of the Department of Human Resources

in Victoria, Saanich and Sidney have moved their usual offices

to temporary locations during the strike of municipal

employees? I took the question as notice.

We did make the move. The moves were made before the strike or the lockout

situation existed and, therefore, no staff members were involved in any way

in crossing picket lines. It's also important to note that

before we made the move we contacted the Canadian Union of

Public Employees and advised them of our intentions. They, in

turn, advised us to keep in touch through the B.C. Government

Employees Union, as they did not want to hold direct talks with

the provincial government. This was done. The moves were made

in full consultation with the B.C. Government Employees

Union.

I can give you the details of the moves. The Saanich

district office was moved from the Saanich Municipal Hall to

temporary accommodation at Glendale Hospital; the downtown

Blanshard district office was moved from the City of

Victoria-owned building at Cook Street to a provincially-owned

building at Blanshard Street; the adult placement section,

which was operated out of the Victoria municipal buildings at

Cook Street, was moved to provincially-owned premises at Cook

Street; the Sidney and Islands district office was moved from

the Sidney Municipal Hall at 2440 Sidney Avenue to temporary

premises on the West Saanich Road.

We did not in any way interfere with the strike or lockout

process. No picket lines were crossed; no departmental staff

have been involved in doing work which ordinarily is performed

by the CUPE employees. Our relationship with the respective

municipalities is one of a tenant. When we learned that these

municipalities would likely be unable to continue to supply

adequate premises to meet our needs, we quite properly made

arrangements to secure alternative accommodation elsewhere.

None of these moves were made without full consultation with

the B.C. Government Employees Union, who in turn indicated to

us that they were keeping the Canadian Union of Public

Employees informed of our plans.

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can I take

it then, from the Minister's reply to my original question,

that the move was taken because of the pending strike, and that

while no picket lines were crossed, there would not otherwise

have been these moves of office locations had the strike not

been pending?

Hon. Mr. Levi: Yes, that's quite true.

NEGOTIATIONS ON INDIAN LANDS

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the

previous question to the Minister. Can I ask the Minister what

steps are now being taken to enter into negotiations with

Indian bands on the general question of the Indian lands claim,

rather than the specific aspect, which is, of course, cut-off

lands?

[ Page 1056 ]

Hon. Mr. Levi: I think, Mr. Member, that that

question can be answered partly by what I said before, that a

full report has to be made to cabinet. I've not had that

opportunity to do that.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, a further

supplementary. May I ask the Minister if, despite the

appointment of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) some years

ago, despite the reorganization, there has been no report to

cabinet on the general question of Indian lands claims? Is that

so?

Hon. Mr. Levi: You may recall, Mr. Member, that the

position taken by the government is that we have been waiting

writing, what its

part is in these kinds of negotiations. Up to

now we have not had this kind of commitment from the Government

of Canada.

Mr. Gibson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister not agree that with respect to the cut-off lands, the

that it is a moral outrage, that it should be remedied, and

that the land is in the hands of the provincial government to

do just that?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question is

argumentative.

BRIDGE LINK BETWEEN GULF ISLANDS

Mr. Curtis: To the Minister of Highways, with respect

to the possibility of a bridge link for pedestrians or

vehicles, or both, between Mayne and Saturna Islands in the

Gulf Islands group: can the Minister tell the House if there is

any study whatsoever taking place within his department as to

the feasibility of such a link? Has there been an early design,

preliminary study of feasibility?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): I'll take that

as notice, Mr. Speaker.

RESIGNATION OF JOHN TRASK

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): To the Minister of

Economic Development as vice-president of BCR: will the

resignation of the general manager, John Trask, of the BC

Railway have any effect upon its operation in view of the high

degree of respect held for this man by both the employees and

the customers?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, the resignation of Mr.

John Trask cannot be confirmed.

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question: have the

resignations and the mass purge of the management of the

railway any bearing on the second request by the railway for an

additional $20 million? Is the cash flow of the railway in

deteriorating condition?

DETAILS OF MINNEKHADA PURCHASE

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Recently,

before the adjournment, I was asked about information

concerning the real estate fee paid in connection with the

purchase of the Minnekhada stock farm. This property was

acquired for $2 million and the Daon Development Corp. was

reimbursed for a $52,500 fee paid to Knowlton Realty Ltd. In

addition, tax adjustments, land registry fees and legal fees

amounted to $11,464, bringing the total paid out for this

acquisition to $2,063,964.

I was also asked by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) about adherence to fire safety standards in the

citing of homes at the Meadowbrook project in the District of

Coquitlam. I can advise the House that the Coquitlam fire chief

is satisfied that the contractor, North Road Housing Co. Ltd.,

is adhering to all of the municipality's fire safety

regulations.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked also about

bylaw infractions that had been issued by the Coquitlam

building department in connection with the Meadowbrook project.

I am advised that notices of building and. plumbing bylaw

infractions were issued in the number suggested by the Member —

approximately 10 per unit — however, I would point out to the

House that most of these involved normal plumbing and finishing

details and that it is the normal procedure for municipal

building inspectors to issue a great many correction notices

after they have completed an inspection of a particular

construction phase of a residential or commercial building. In

fact, I am told that approximately 20 notices of this type can

normally be expected in a single family construction. Of

course, all notices are issued to North Road Housing Co. Ltd.,

the contractor. Not one notice has been sent to Dunhill.

I can also advise the Member for Langley that the North Road

Housing Co. Ltd. Is responsible for servicing the one-year

guarantee of the Meadowbrook homes and that a sufficient amount

of funds has been held back from the purchase price to cover

any warranty work.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could

clarify or arrive at a procedure where, if Ministers have lengthy, prepared

answers to questions taken as notice, that they not detract from the time of

the question period. This is a

[ Page

1057 ]

question that has come up before, and the Speaker was going

to advise on it. When they have taken it as notice, it becomes

almost the form of answer as is provided for written

questions.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Well, put it on the order

paper.

Mr. Bennett: I wonder, then, when they have made that

choice, whether we would have another means of presenting the

answer to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is, as the Hon. Leader

has pointed out, that when a time has been given for a prepared

answer it can sometimes be lengthy, and I think in some cases,

too lengthy. That is, it is going beyond, often, the call of

duty. The point is, however, that if the answer is not given

during the question period on notice, then there is no way of

having supplementaries. It's obvious that we must give the

answer during the question period in order that the Members may

also have supplementaries. But I do urge upon the Members that

they try to restrict their answers to the bare essentials of

the questions so that it doesn't consume too much of question

time. That's all I can do at the moment.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): On that same

point of order I would like to suggest that question period has

been used, not from time to time but continually, as a means of

making a speech in asking a question. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,

the opposition sometimes feels that the answers are too long,

but they like to ask the question and not get the answer. It's

just quite unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker: I think we all are aware of the rules

with regard to question period; it is a question of all of us

observing them. I think it is important that questions not be

too argumentative or too much a statement of opinion but

directed to the rules that are well known to all the Members.

If you have lost sight of the rules, we'd be glad to forward

another copy to you.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 4: Deputy Minister's office, $864,208.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Now, Mr. Chairman, in this particular department

it may be a little difficult to be specific about which issues come under which

vote, and perhaps the Minister can give us some guidance as we go along.

I notice under the Deputy Minister's office there are some

notes saying policy development and planning is involved. On

that basis I would like to ask a few questions. The whole

question of some of the elements of the management of the

agricultural industry would surely come under the title "policy

development and planning."

For example, at the present time there is a great deal of

concern in society about the proper employment or the

employment of able-bodied persons who are recipients of

welfare. I notice that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in

its brief to the cabinet made note of this point. They said

that over the years farmers have had a shortage of labour,

particularly during harvesting periods, and that they have

asked the provincial government "to reassess its position" and

those are exactly the words used in the brief relative to

welfare recipients who are presently enjoying the benefits of

the welfare programme on the one hand, but do not particularly

wish to participate in the farm labour scene on the other. I

gather that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) met with the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture; the date isn't stated in this

brief which was presented to the cabinet on December 19, 1974.

I wonder if perhaps the Minister could give us some statement

of policy and planning with regard to that very important

issue, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that one of the subjects

which is raised whenever one goes to political meetings around

the province at the present time is the concern that there

seems to be ever-increasing sums of money spent on welfare.

Unfortunately, it is all lumped into the one word "welfare" as

though all the money was being spent to support people who for

one reason or another cannot work or choose not to work. There

is certainly a percentage — I suppose we could debate what the

percentage is — of employable people in receipt of social

assistance. Since the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has chosen

to raise the issue, I think it would be a very fair question to

ask the Minister under this vote.

Another smaller issue that is raised in the same brief —

which to me seems rather strange when we have the lumber market

in a slump — is the issue that there is a real shortage of

sawdust and shavings for use in the agricultural industry. The

suggestion is made that again a committee be set up. I think a

committee was set up. Yes, that's right, it's mentioned that an

interdepartmental committee between Agriculture and the B.C.

Forest Service has been set up. Apparently there is a real

shortage of shavings for the livestock and poultry

industry.

There are one or two suggestions made by the B.C.

[ Page 1058 ]

Federation as to how this might be dealt with, particularly

the proposal for stockpiling. I wonder if the Minister could

perhaps explain a little bit about why there isn't a better

policy to assure supply of these aspects of the forest industry

at a time when, it is our understanding, the forest industry

would be glad to have additional methods of disposing their

products.

The other question which has been raised is the farmers'

difficulty in moving livestock on B.C. Ferries, during the

summer months in particular. I think we have been round this

race track a few times in this House in question period about

the particular problems of Vancouver Island residents who have

to use the ferries for some reason other than holiday

travelling during the tourist season. The answer so far has

always been that everyone will be treated alike, tourists and

residents. But I think in the case of the moving of livestock,

surely there should be some serious consideration given to the

possibility of some preferential system for the farmers.

A further point that I think should come under this vote —

but I stand to be corrected — is the petition or the letter

that I think each MLA received regarding the development of

Highway 97. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea),

unfortunately, is out of the House. I am sure the Ministers

probably received the same letter that we all received asking

for explanations as to why there seems to be a real intent on

the part of the Department of Highways to use farmland to a

greater or lesser degree or to disrupt the people in the

Oliver-Osoyoos area.

I think it is worth reading into the record the resolution

which was passed by the B.C. Fruit Growers Association in the

Oliver area. Their resolution is to the effect that the

Department of Highways be notified of their concern and that

they be requested to immediately terminate the programme which

is presently being carried out. Really, this resolution relates

to a lot of "whereas"-es and I don't want to take up the time

of the House by reading in all the "whereas"-es. The purpose of

the resolution is to express the fact that the highway appears

to pass through a very highly productive fruit-growing area.

The widening and the subsequent loss of land is in direct

conflict with the intention of the government to preserve

farmland.

As I say, there are numerous "whereas"-es prior to the

resolution, but there is no doubt that the B.C. Fruit Growers

Association in the Oliver area is obviously quite concerned and

would like to think that their concern is heard by the

Minister. Perhaps there will be some suspension of highway

planning until their voice has been heard or until the Minister

provides them with a satisfactory explanation as to what plans

are going on there.

I think these are the main points under this vote.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): I am not too sure whether I

should be speaking on this particular matter under vote 4

either and certainly could stand to be corrected.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think we will allow

the latitude that the Hon. Minister, when he rises in his

place, can indicate if he wishes to answer at this point or if

he wishes it to be brought up under a specific vote. Otherwise,

we would ask you to try to keep your remarks....

Ms. Sanford: My view is that it should be at this

time, Mr. Chairman, because the Deputy Minister has certainly

been very involved in the particular project to which I would

like to refer this afternoon, It is a pleasure to speak here today on behalf of the

farmers who are within Comox constituency because of the very

warm feeling that they have for the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich). When I have the opportunity to speak to the

farmers there, they keep coming back to me with very

complimentary remarks. I would like to quote just three that

I've heard within the last week concerning the work of the

Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Speak to the

loggers in Sayward.

Ms. Sanford: They have said: "Never has so much been

done in this province for agriculture." Another comment that

they have made: "Things looked so grim for farmers two years

ago, but this government has bent over backwards to reverse

that situation." And a third. comment: "I just can't fault the

government on its work in agriculture." Those were three of the

comments that I've heard in the last week about the work of

this Minister.

Mr. Chabot: What about Tsitika-Schoen?

Ms. Sanford: Tsitika-Schoen is an issue which I hope

we will get to under other estimates. If you could wait, Mr.

Member for Columbia River, we certainly will be happy to

discuss Tsitika-Schoen as well.

Mr. Chabot: Why don't you send the Minister copies of

those letters?

Ms. Sanford: The particular proposal about which I

would like to inform the House this afternoon is a study which

has been undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and by the

farmers in the Courtenay area to install an irrigation system

in the Courtenay-Comox area in order to provide additional

production for the farmers in the area.

[ Page 1059 ]

This system, which is under discussion and under study at

the moment, could eventually cover as much as 3,500 acres.

Believe me, the farmers in the area are excited about the

possibilities because they could more than double their

production with the installation of an irrigation system of

this type. It is my understanding that government money to

provide for such a system would be up to as much as 75 per cent

of the cost of the system. Perhaps the Minister could correct

me on that if I am wrong.

The farmers, who had been interested in this irrigation

system for some years, had formed themselves into an

association which they called the Headquarters Road Irrigation

District and had intended to try to provide irrigation for just

a small number of acres and for just a few farmers in the area.

However, when they met with the Minister just over a year ago,

he suggested to them that they should think bigger and try to

include an even larger area for irrigation in the Comox Valley.

As a result, the Headquarters Road Irrigation District has

recently gone to the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona in

order to discuss with them the possibilities of working

together in order to ensure that this system is installed.

Because the project was really too big for just a few farmers

in that irrigation district, the regional board has indicated

an interest, and if the regional board does get involved we may

see as many as 3,500 acres come under irrigation in the Comox

Valley.

I see no reason why the project can't go ahead if the

Headquarters Road Irrigation District gets the support of that

regional district.

If they can more than double their production in the Comox

Valley, the farmers are also considering the possibility of

secondary processing of the food products in the area. Some of

the farmers recalled to me — or remembered and related to me —

that in the '30s there was once a cannery in the area, but,

ironically, that cannery had to close down because there simply

was not enough water. Because there was no irrigation at that

time, a dry season meant that not enough vegetables were

produced in order to keep the cannery in business, That cannery

later became a meat processing plant, they tell me, and then

eventually closed.

Here we have an opportunity to make the area very productive

again and then to get into the much-needed secondary industry

for the Comox Valley. You may recognize that at the moment the

residents of Comox and Courtenay are very heavily dependent on

the air base which is located there, and if we can get the

irrigation, get more farmers producing, bring more land into

production, and go into canneries as well, we will be doing a

good service for the people of the whole area.

The farmland in that area is beautiful farmland. Much of it is class 1 land,

and I think with the co-operation of the regional board, the Department of Agriculture,

and the farmers of the area, I anticipate that it will become a major producer

of agricultural products in the province.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Chairman, one of the items of expenditure under vote 4 is the

expenses of the food council, and I want to raise this matter

with the Hon, Minister, particularly in view of the letter

which was circulated to all Members of this Legislature from

the Consumers' Association of Canada announcing their

resignation from the food council, I am rather shocked at the tone that is exhibited by this

letter. As I read part of it, the president of the Consumers'

Association of Canada uses words such as these:

"At various meetings, we have both been harassed on a personal

level rather than on the relevant issues under discussion. However, our major

concern was related to the lack of action and direction of the council."

Later on in the letter, the president says:

"We seriously questioned the impartiality of the chairman,

Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Maurie King.

Incidents involved two biased press releases, breaking a

tie-vote on an issue directly related to his department, and

influencing from the chair by leading the council in its

business."

The letter goes on to say:

"It appeared evident to us that the food council was often

asked to rubber stamp ideas originally initiated by the

Department of Agriculture."

Mrs. Brown goes on to say:

"We were very disappointed at a meeting that took the

position that as consumer representatives we were deliberately

'causing confrontations.' "

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister must answer this

committee on the serious charges that are implicit in this

letter from Mrs. Brown, particularly when one considers the

background which led to the establishment of this food

council.

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture met in the year

1970 to deal with matters relating to all aspects of food

production, processing and marketing in the Province of British

Columbia. They concluded in that year, in their report tabled

in this Legislature, that there had been insufficient time

available to deal with the matters and insufficient publicity

given to the various groups and organizations within the

province who would be interested in the matters which were then

before the committee for consideration. As a consequence, in

the following year, 1971, the committee was again

[ Page 1060 ]

given directions by this House to deal with aspects of the production and distribution of food in British Columbia.

The Hon. Minister of Education, (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) the

Deputy Premier of this province, and others now on the

government side worked diligently with the government of the

day to produce a report. It is interesting that the committee

recommended in 1971 that there be appropriate amendments to

the Department of Agriculture Act to rename the department and

broaden its responsibilities as the Department of Food and

Agriculture, with power to administer all of the laws of the

province with respect to production, processing, distribution

and marketing of food.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it was recommended that under the

authority of the Minister there be established an agency known

as the British Columbia Food Council, which would be empowered

to study, investigate, report, advise and recommend action with

respect to all questions raised in the production and marketing

of food, and that such food council be comprised of

representatives from the Department of Food and Agriculture,

producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, consumers and

labour, with power to establish advisory committees.

It was the belief of the committee at that time, and they

were unanimous in this report, that the Department of

Agriculture had to broaden its scope to concern itself not only

with the narrow problems that faced agriculture, as it had

heretofore been known in this province, but to concern itself

more with the aspect which is of greatest importance to the

people of British Columbia — namely, how we produce our food,

how we market our food and the concern that the consumer has

with respect to all these activities in the private and public

sector and the role of government in regulating those

activities.

It was with some delight that members of the agricultural

committee who served in 1970, 1971 and since found that the

government had seen fit to establish the food council, and it

was hoped at that time that representatives from all of these

various segments of our society who were concerned with the

production, marketing and distribution of food would be fully

involved, through the council, in what should have been an

expanded role for the Department of Agriculture.

We have had in debates in this House over the past year serious questions raised

as to the extent to which the concerns of consumers are being reflected in many

of the programmes carried on by this government, under this Minister. Now we

have the clearest indication again that the interest of the consumer is being

ignored — indeed, in this particular case, that the representatives of the consumers

are being ignored in the work of this food council. This is most unfortunate,

Mr. Chairman. At this particular time, when the government is doing apparently

everything within its power to assist the producer segment, apparently nothing

is being done so far as the marketing and distribution is concerned — leaving

the consumer again, as has been the case with marketing boards, in some serious

doubt as to whether the best interests of the consumer are being ignored as

well.

To suggest, as this letter does, partiality on the part of

the Associate Deputy Minister is a most serious charge, and one

which I don't think that this Minister can treat lightly. I'm

sure he does not.

But it would seem to me that the food council concept,

recommended by the committee and adopted by the government, is

being frustrated in the fulfillment of the role that the

council should be able to perform in this province by the

actions of members of the department and by some lack of

concern on the part of the Minister in the fulfillment of what

is the real purpose of the Department of Agriculture in British

Columbia.

It is all very well to be concerned about the needs of the

farmers. I don't think there is anybody on any side of this

House who has not expressed concern about the situation in

which the primary producer finds himself. Certainly none of the

opposition Members have spoken other than in support of

activities which would ensure that the primary producer has his

economic situation improved. But all the time we have expressed

to the Minister the central theme that in the final analysis it

is the consumer of food products whose interest must likewise

be the concern of this department.

We find in these days of ever-increasing prices that our

citizens at all levels — not only our senior citizens and those

on fixed incomes, but those people whose families are engaged

daily in gainful activities — are experiencing extreme

difficulty in paying the food bills. It is a problem which is

not unique to British Columbia alone, and I wouldn't suggest

that it is. But it is a matter which must be given most serious

consideration by government. There is one department which has

this responsibility, and that is the Department of

Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, am I offending against your rules in dealing

with this matter? There really is an item here that says....

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member is skating on the

borderline of violating the rules. I'll just draw to his

attention what I am concerned about. In May, 17th edition, page

739: "... nor can the actions of those high public servants

... can only be criticized on a substantive motion." That is,

they cannot be debated in the estimates. Now I would ask the

Hon. Member just to be aware of this.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1061 ]

I clearly don't want to offend against any of your rulings,

and I'm not raising any criticism against the Associate Deputy

Minister. It has been done by somebody else and done in the

most public fashion. The effect of it, Mr. Chairman, is what

concerns me. The effect of it is to denigrate the position of

that senior civil servant and to affect the functioning of the

food council. That is what is my concern.

If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, not only in the matter of

the cost of food must we be concerned in this province, great

though that problem may be. I think we must also be concerned

as to the extent to which our citizens are being nutritionally

served by the foods which are available to them in the stores

of this province. This is a subject which should have been the

responsibility of the food council to concern itself with in

the marketing and the distribution segments — how nutritious

the foods are that are offered in our stores. How nutritious

are the foods that are offered in our schools to our young

people who, for reasons over which they have no control, must

eat their lunches at school?

To what extent does the Department of Agriculture carry on

liaison work with the Department of Health on this most

important aspect? Again, this is something which the food

council would properly concern itself with.

When we find that Mrs. Brown suggests that the food council

was merely to rubber stamp ideas originally initiated by the

Department of Agriculture, it would suggest that the food

council is perhaps being inhibited in the fullest performance

of the responsibilities that that council should carry out.

I'm sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) would

support me when I say that there is — dealing with this

nutritional matter for a moment further, Mr. Chairman — strong

evidence that many of the foods that are available in many of

our schools — and if not in the schools, those that are offered

to the children as fashion foods in confectionery stores, in

local stores where the young children spend their money — are

largely junk. They consist principally of sugar, which, in

itself, has been suggested by some to be almost a poisonous

substance when taken in the quantities that are presently being

used in North America today.

I don't wish to belabour the matter any more. I want to hear

from the Minister as to precisely what role he sees for the

food council, and to advise this committee whether or not the

representative of the Consumers' Association of Canada is

justified in the startling statements that she makes in

offering the resignation of her organization as a member of the

food council.

I would also like the Minister to indicate to what extent in the planning programme

carried on by his department he is prepared to take into account matters such

as those properly coming before the food council: nutrition of food, distribution

of food and the marketing of food. We may do as much for the primary producer

as we wish, but if the department's responsibility ends there, then as far as

the public of British Columbia is concerned the department is not doing its

job.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister Of Agriculture): The first point raised by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

referred to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture brief and the

argument in there that there are too many people who are

receiving social assistance or welfare payments who should be

out working for it. I know that that is a very popular feeling

in the community, but I think in spite of the fact that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) quoted figures when

he was speaking, I believe during the budget debate, to the

effect that the proportion of the population receiving that

kind of payment has actually gone down in the two and a half

years since he has had charge of that portfolio, this

information is largely ignored in the community at large and

there is this feeling abroad that there are too many people who

are not working for what they are getting.

I don't doubt that there are some people in the community

who would rather not work at hard physical labour. Certainly,

while there are some very physically demanding jobs in industry

in general, agriculture is very demanding. Almost every

position that you can think of in agriculture is demanding

physically. I am quite prepared to go along with the idea that

people who have the physical ability to work should be working.

If they prefer not to and prefer to exist some other way, well,

that's fine, but there should be opportunities for them.

However, I am not prepared to really get behind any programme

that would shift to agriculture the responsibility of employing

these people — lawyers, maybe, but not farmers.

Certainly, farmers in general have tried to open their doors

to people who are willing to work. Some seasonal jobs in

particular have gone begging. They haven't been able to get

enough workers to do the work on the farms. Unfortunately,

while there are people like this moving around the country who

are existing by some means or other, when it comes to working

on farms — the kind of work that is involved in a dairy farm,

for example, where they start very early and finish very late,

or in fruit picking, where it is very demanding during the

harvesting season and there are seasons when it isn't — to ask

farmers to provide the employment opportunities for people who

don't really want to work is not a responsibility I intend to

undertake.

With respect to the shortages of sawdust and shavings, it is

true that there has been a depressed market in the logging

industry, but it's not a matter

[ Page 1062 ]

of selling sawdust and shavings, it's the sales of lumber

that have hit that industry. Strangely enough, when the logging

industry goes down and the demand for the lumber falls off, we

find that instead of having more of these by-products for

farming, the actual quantity of sawdust and shavings available

decreases, of course, and beyond that the industry itself is

using a higher proportion of these formerly waste products in

the manufacture of pulp and also for energy production. So the

supplies of sawdust and shavings have actually been curtailed

during this period, making it all that much more difficult for

agriculture to get access to its usual supply. Beyond that, the

price has gone up markedly and this is another problem.

The Department of Agriculture has set up a committee and

co-operated with the Forest Service, with industry and with

farm organizations to try to bring together areas where there

are some supplies available and making them available to the

farmers who need them. It has been a talking programme — trying

to get the co-operation of industry — which has met with some

measure of success, but not as much as we would have liked to

have seen.

With reference to livestock on B.C. ferries, it has been a

problem from time to time and when the problem arises it has

been dealt with. The most recent instance that I know of was

the movement of broilers from the mainland to Vancouver Island.

It was so bad, from the point of view of B.C. Ferries, that

they said they would simply cease moving these broilers, and

the industry was in a bit of a panic for a time. They took it

up with the Department of Agriculture, and I took it up with

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) and we were able to not so much impose new rules on

the people transporting the broilers but insist on the old

rules being followed. I think there has been better observance

of those rules and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't

been anything recently on this question of transporting

livestock on B.C. ferries.

I know there are still problems about getting them in on

time to avoid the waiting periods. There are many people who

have to wait to travel across the gulf between here and the

mainland, both ways, and it's very unfortunate when livestock

are involved, but sometimes necessary in these waiting periods.

We've done as much as we can in that, I think. We'll continue

to keep making representations when specific instances of

problems are brought to the attention of the Department of

Agriculture.

Highways on farmland within the agricultural land reserves. I have a copy of

the letter that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay referred to. I think in the Department

of Highways we have a situation where the Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) himself is

extremely co-operative. He is a great supporter of the agricultural land reserve

policy himself, but it hasn't worked its way down through the various levels

in his department.

When a need for a road comes to mind at the local level, I

think it's generally the local engineers, if you like, who look

at the problem from a straight engineering point of view, as

used to be the way to do that. It was, up until two years ago.

If you have to build a road, you look for the best place to

build a road without any consideration of anything else. While

the Minister and I have other considerations in mind now, and

while to a great degree the whole community has other

considerations, nevertheless, the technicians who are planning

the roads still look for the best way from strictly a

road-building point of view.

I would suspect that when it is drawn to the attention of

those higher up in the department what damage the road you have

in mind would do to a significantly important agricultural

area, then some other way of satisfying the transportation

problem in that area will be looked for.

The Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) brought up the

question of the Comox irrigation proposal. As she said in her

remarks, I did make a point of visiting the area about one year

ago and I was shown the 3,500 acres that they hope to irrigate.

I understand they have been working on it for some years. As

she said in her remarks, I did suggest to them that they widen

their vision. Instead of looking at just 3,500 acres, they

should be looking at 6,000. It is excellent land, but it's land

that, again, at this time of year particularly, although not

today — at least not the last time I was outside.... It's easy

to forget that we live in a semi-arid area. To get any kind of

significant agricultural production on the east coast of

Vancouver Island, you need irrigation. You have to have the

water when you need the water, rather than in the wintertime

when we get more than enough.

There are some 6,000 acres of excellent land in that area

that could be brought into good production if irrigation was

available. We have discussed it in the department with people

from the Comox Valley. They did make a proposal based on the

3,500, and I asked them to take it back and look at it again

and to consider the 6,000 acres. They are now looking at both

proposals and trying to find out locally what measure of

support they might expect from the farmers in that area. On the

basis of support from the local individuals, who will still be

called upon to put up 25 per cent of the funds, we will decide

the size of that irrigation project.

I wouldn't want to build up the Member's hopes or the hopes

in the minds of some of the producers in that area when it

comes to processing. I appreciate that there were many small

processing plants in many parts of the province that operated

for a while, and operated successfully. For one reason or

another they

[ Page 1063 ]

were closed down one after the other. But in the meantime,

since those plants have been closed down, we find that

processing plants have changed quite considerably. Processes

have changed; plants have become much larger. It is a

labour-intensive industry to start with and, to be successful,

they have to modernize and have plants of a size that would

need much more even than the 6,000 acres that are available in

that area. I'm not denying that there couldn't be some

processing of some products, but I wouldn't look for us getting

back to the days when there was local processing of most

vegetables that were being produced in many areas of the

province.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) asked questions about the Advisory Food Council. He

was shocked at some of the words in the letter. I'll say I was

disappointed rather than shocked. I was disappointed, for

example, to read in that letter that they had come to me with

several requests, none of which had been answered

positively.

I recall the first time I met with the B.C. Food Council.

There was one representative on it at the time from the CAC

(Consumer's Association of Canada). I was met then with the

request that this particular representative felt rather lonely,

that she was the only one representing consumers, in spite of

that fact that, as I looked around the room, I felt that all

the members there were consumers. She felt that she was the

only one who was there to represent consumers, and said that on

occasion you couldn't even get the seconder for a motion to

have the right to discuss a motion. She would like to have

another representative from the CAC on the food council. The

request was hardly made before it was granted. That's No.

Then there was a second request — and I can't say for

certain now that the request first came from that particular

CAC representative, but it was certainly supported by that

particular member of the Advisory Food Council. That was a

clause that was in the aims and objectives or the guidelines

for the Advisory Food Council, guidelines that were established

by the previous administration although it never established

the food council itself. Included in these guidelines was a

statement to the effect that the Advisory Food Council could

look into such matters as were referred to it by the Minister.

They said that they felt this rather hampered things that they

might want to do.

They had to sit back and wait for me to suggest projects for

them. I asked them how they would like a change. They said they

would like to have the right to initiate these investigations

on their own. I said: "Okay, let's debate that." And it was

done. Just as quickly as the request was made the request was

granted.

They had some complaints about the chairman. I don't accept for one moment

any of the criticisms about the way the chairman conducted the sittings of the

Advisory Food Council; nevertheless, they felt that the chairman should not

be someone as close to me as the Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture. I

was only too pleased to react positively to that request since I had already

made up my mind that his other work as Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture

was much too important for him to be giving as much time to the Advisory Food

Council as he was. I had already determined that it should be someone else in

this department giving this liaison, and I was going to ask them to have a new

chairman at their new meeting, So I was quite happy to respond positively to

that request as well.

I chaired the next annual meeting myself and suggested that

they name from among their number — and that they do it at

their next meeting when there would be a few more new members

of the food council there — a chairman from among that group.

So I reacted positively to that request as well.

I think, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Chairman, the

only criticism in that letter that perhaps I should deal with

at all is the one where the chairman cast the deciding vote

against a motion that there be an investigation of one

particular marketing board. Of course, the fact that he had to

cast the deciding vote shows that the motion itself had failed.

The proponents of that motion had failed to convince the

majority of the members of the council that this particular

investigation should go ahead. The motion had failed right

there without his casting the deciding vote.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, exactly. Nevertheless, the

motion had failed. They had moved and seconded the motion and

had it discussed and had failed to get any progress on that

motion. The motion had failed right there without the chairman

casting the deciding vote. But they complained to me about this

as well. So I suggested to them that if I were involved in that

discussion, I would not have supported the motion. I couldn't

see that that particular narrow investigation they were

proposing in their motion would really do anything about the

cost of food for the consumer in the Province of British

Columbia. They were proposing that there be an investigation of

the policies of one particular marketing board.

I suggested to them that perhaps if they were wanting to

look at the total picture of the cost of eggs even, if they

were going to conduct an investigation or even hire someone,

hire some research, and find out just exactly why eggs cost 91

cents a dozen, as they did at that time, then such an

investigation might — I couldn't speak for the board or the

council — gain much more support from the council than a very

narrow investigation of the

[ Page 1064 ]

actions of one particular marketing board and perhaps even

just certain aspects of that particular marketing board's

operation. Nevertheless, they chose not to promote that. Having

failed to get the support for one particular move, they

apparently were.... I was going to say they were not

interested, but that may not be fair. But for whatever reasons

they had, they chose not to follow the suggestion I had

offered, for what it was worth, that they do a total

investigation of one food product to find out why it cost as

much as it did. As far as the things they might be looking

into, the cost of food.... Well, that's something that the

Advisory Food Council can take into consideration.

My own feeling on that would be that we have the Food Prices

Review Board in Ottawa, which I believe will last until the end

of this calendar year. I think that once they have completed

their work, it may well be that the Advisory Food Council would

want to carry on with that kind of investigation provincially.

I don't know.

They asked for the right to bring up their own ideas, to

proceed with them. I gave them that right. If the Advisory Food

Council wants to follow some kind of programme like that, I

would be quite interested in helping them and supporting

them.

As far as food nutrition is concerned, I think the best

thing we can do, from the point of view of the quality of the

food offered to consumers in the Province of British Columbia,

is to do everything we can to see that we grow more food in the

Province of British Columbia, to grow it where we have some

control of the kind of methods that are used in producing and

processing that food — some control, for example, over

insecticides. There is a great deal of concern over

insecticides, herbicides that are used. When the products are

grown here in the Province of British Columbia, we know what is

happening; we know the conditions under which they are being

grown. We have some control. We have some control over the

processing plants in the Province of British Columbia. We don't

have any control over what is happening to that food in other

areas. We control, for example, the processing of mushrooms in

B.C. We don't really know anything about the processing of

mushrooms in Taiwan. So I suggest — and this is the direction

in which we've been going — that we, wherever possible, promote

the production, processing and consumption of B.C. foods.

The Department of Health — I think that it is just repeating

to say that there has been this royal commission inquiry.

Interim reports have been presented. I believe the final report

is expected any day. I think perhaps that that royal commission

report, when it comes in, will point out new directions that we

can point toward with respect to protecting the health of our

citizens, with respect to producing nutritious food in the

province.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister a couple of points which I trust you

will find acceptable under this vote. If not, I'll pick them up

later.

Firstly, it must have been embarrassing and annoying — more

annoying, I would think — to the Minister of Agriculture in his

continuing efforts to speak on behalf of the people who produce

food in British Columbia — grow it, or in the case of livestock

or dairies — to read a story as I did in The Daily

Colonist for January 23 of this year.

It's a brief story: "Most Farms Big Business — IWA Chief."

This is a Canadian Press story from Vancouver:

"'It's time to throw away the crying towel for Canadian

farmers,' says Vancouver and District Labour Council president,

Sid Thompson. Speaking in support of a resolution to curb

inflation and unemployment, Thompson told council delegates

that most farming now is nothing but business'-

Then there's a quote:

" 'I suspect the bulk of food is produced by big business,

and 70 per cent of the nation's farmers deserve no help or

sympathy from anyone.' As for the smaller farmers, Thompson

said, 'Consumers can't continue to be held up for ransom on

food prices to keep a few small farmers in business.' He said:

'There are no small farmers involved in ranching in B.C. and

Alberta. All those spreads are run by big business.' "

I can't help thinking, Mr. Chairman, as I read that and as I

read it again today, that that wasn't my impression in

travelling with the agriculture committee of this Legislature

some months ago, meeting a number of small farmers, family

operations, and I know the Minister has spoken about

encouraging the family farm operation in British Columbia. It's

an essential part of the total agricultural picture in B.C.,

and it's most unfortunate that someone who should be well

informed, but obviously is not on this subject — Mr. Thompson — would be quoted and would have such very strong views about

farming as it is practised in B.C., Alberta and elsewhere.

The other point, Mr. Chairman, I am sure will be of concern

to the Minister as well — and I preface any remarks by making

it clear that this is not to be misconstrued as a statement

against our beloved family pet, man's best friend, the family

dog — but my files, and I'm sure the files of other Members of

this House, show an increasingly long list of stories with

respect to dogs attacking domestic animals, attacking wild

animals, deer and so on, and in some very unfortunate

instances, attacking young people. There's a story from

Mission: "Dogs Maul Three-year-old." This was January 27 of

this year in

[ Page 1065 ]

The Vancouver Sun . The child was finally reported in

satisfactory condition after being found in a neighbour's yard

with her clothes torn off. Police said two German shepherd-type

dogs, believed to be the attackers, were rounded up and will be

held in quarantine for two weeks pending rabies tests.

"Dog Packs Killing Hundreds of Deer." This is the

Victoria Times from March 20 of this year. "The Town of

Sidney Ready to Tackle the Dog Problem," February 12,

1975 in The Daily Colonist . "Saanich Draws Bead on

Marauding Dogs." This is December 4 in the Victoria

Times . "A committee of council is going to write

Agriculture Minister Stupich requesting Saanich be given power

to enforce the new domestic animal Act, now only applicable in

unorganized areas." I wonder if the Minister, in fact, received

that letter.

"Mother Sees Recovery of Girl Mauled By Dogs." That was

another story in The Province , just a number of weeks

ago. Then the final newspaper

article I'll refer to in this

connection is from The Vancouver Sun , February 7: "Dogs

Bite 1.8 Million." This is an estimate by the American Medical

Association. "Dogs probably bite 1.8 million Americans a year.

The dog, as man's best friend, is not always truthful." It

says: "600,000 Americans are badly bitten each year, and minor

bites perhaps triple that figure. The family dog may be

dangerous to your health," it added.

The Domestic Animal Protection Act....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would just point out

to the Hon. Member that I think the matter he is discussing

would be better discussed under vote 6, however....

Mr. Curtis: If you wish. I'm very nearly through.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member, if it's going to

be short, just finish? I think the Hon. Minister would handle

it at this point.

Mr. Curtis: Yes, I'm very nearly through. The

Domestic Animal Protection Act was assented to on November 7,

1973. I see behind the Minister of Agriculture the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

An Hon. Member: He's gritting his teeth, too.

Mr. Curtis: I'm not sure just what that Minister is

doing when this subject is discussed, but it must be admitted

that the subject is of concern to an increasingly large

proportion of our population, not only to those people who

involved in raising livestock, but to those people who live in

isolated areas as well as in our suburban communities.

I would be very happy, whether under this vote or a

subsequent vote, if the Minister would tell the committee and

reassure the people of British Columbia that some definite

action is being taken with respect to this very serious

problem, and one which I fear, unless strong action is taken,

is going to become even more serious and lead to some very

tragic individual instances.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I had meant to comment on

the food council issue too, and I think that in light of

remarks by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), and the answers from the Minister, we won't take too

many minutes to enlarge on the subject a little bit.

I think that the Minister is perhaps all too readily

overlooking the fact that the citizens in British Columbia are

concerned, not only that producers should get a fair return for

their money and their efforts and their labour, but that the

pendulum is probably swinging to the degree that now the

consumer is perhaps unable to let his voice be heard with

effect at the level where the action is and where the decisions

are made.

With the greatest of respect I have to differ with the

Minister who said he looked around the room and he got the

impression that we're all consumers, because I'd like to read

out who the members of the food council are, in addition to the

two consumers.

There's the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture,

the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, the

manager of Intercontinental Packers Ltd., there's the Western

Food Processors Assoc. manager, Pacific Produce Co. Ltd., and

Canadian Safeways Ltd. vice-president. If I was a consumer on a

committee like that, trying to cope with the expertise, the

business experience, and the particular direction from which

these individuals would surely be arguing on such a food

council committee, I would consider the ordinary citizen and

consumer heavily overridden in debate simply because, while

they may be consumers inasmuch as we all also breathe and our

hearts all beat, I think that the Minister was really

stretching things a little bit when he suggested that all the

members on the council are consumers, and Mrs. Brown and Mrs.

Lotzkar were really no different from the others.

I think the point was well made back in January when Mrs.

Lotzkar, who is the other lady from the consumers' association,

made the statement very clear. She said: "We feel it's

overweighed towards the producers and away from the consumers,

" While I think that the Minister has acknowledged the

complaint that they made about the chairman being very close to

the Minister, they felt, and stated on January 9 that the

chairman must, by his position, tend to favour the producers

rather than the consumers. As our legal friend from West

[ Page 1066 ]

Vancouver–Howe Sound remarked, if there are two consumers

and eight or nine producers, they really have to put on some

argument to get even a tie in a situation like that. Again, I

would have to question....

An Hon. Member: They wouldn't win a vote in here.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: It's even more magnificent for the

opposition to win a vote in here. (Laughter.)

The Minister put a very unique kind of

interpretation on a

tie vote, and I think for the Minister to suggest that because

the vote was 4-4 or 5-5, that it had already failed, really is

stretching the whole basic concept of the democratic system and

the whole question of being for or against the issue. It seems

to me that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and

perhaps the Member for Oak Bay, are failing to get the message

through to the Minister that consumers are concerned that

although this government has quite correctly enhanced the lot

of the farmer, and goodness knows the budget says that: $15

million up to $60 million....

While some of that $60 million we're going to ask a little

bit about in a minute, I think basically the kind of farm

assurance programmes and credit programmes, and so on, were

overdue and they're farsighted in their attempt to give the

farmer a fair deal. I don't think anybody's quibbling about

that, least of all the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). We

always know that when we speak favourably about farm support

we'll always get his applause in the background.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: There he goes, regular as the tide.

The kind of comments these ladies make, I think the Minister

perhaps has tended to brush aside rather lightly and it does

again come back to the concept of the role of this kind of body

and the role of marketing boards in the whole picture. These

ladies also made the point — and this is a direct quote:

"Everything always seems to come back to these marketing

boards."

Mrs. Brown said: "The boards have so much power over so many

segments of the industry that they are involved in nearly all

the problems which the council discusses." She said that the

consumers would like the council to be a much more "open" — and

that's the exact word she used — organization, and have it

listen more to consumers and tell the consumers more about its

activities.

At that time, in January, they were very concerned about the new superboard.

As the Minister will know, there is a letter somewhere — I can't just lay my

hands on a copy, but the Minister will know the letter — where they're asking

that the full number of 10 members be appointed to the superboard, and that

there be adequate representation on the superboard by the consumers. The Minister's

response at that time was that there would be representation.

Of course, we now know that on February 14 the superboard

was announced, with five members, not 10. The name of the

consumer was well chosen — Mrs. Wallace (no relation, I might

say) — but Mrs. Barbara Wallace of Ladysmith is described as

the "former assistant-manager of consumer relation divisions to

B.C. Hydro." With such a complex, involved and detailed matter

as food production and processing and marketing, where the

consumer was to be involved, it seemed a little puzzling to me

that if there was to be an expert the person chosen should be

experienced in B.C. Hydro. I would think the whole question of

explaining to the consumer the use of electricity is a vastly

different subject from explaining the price of canned peas, or

whatever.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister's attitude to the

food council has been rather unfortunate. The kind of headlines

we got in the newspapers, when this issue erupted, was this

kind of thing: "Stupich Threatens Food Council." In other words

he said: "If you don't like it, you can lump it; and if you

don't sit down and do what you're told, I'm going to disband

the food council." That's exactly the phraseology that he used.

The Vancouver Sun on January 23 stated: "Agriculture

Minister Dave Stupich said Wednesday that he will disband the

B.C. Food Council if its members continue scrapping, rather

than co-operating." Although this council was delegated to

investigate food production and try to come up with suggestions

regarding needed legislation, and to express the view of the

consumers to the producers, it seems to me that when two

consumers who are heavily outnumbered by people representing

production make the kind of statements they've made, it's

rather unfortunate that the Minister says: "Well, if you don't

do it the way I want you to do it we'll just disband the food

council."

So I feel, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the Minister should

reconsider his attitude on this matter and tell us whether, in

fact, on reconsideration, some of these points we're making are

more valid than he gave us to understand when he answered the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

There are just one or two other points under this vote that

I would like to just quickly touch upon. The Minister mentioned

at the end of his comments, also in response to the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that our greatest aim should be to

produce and process and market and sell as many food products

as possible in British Columbia — our own food products. I

wanted to ask to what

[ Page

1067 ]

degree the Minister is discussing with the beef industry the

question of any way of making feed grains available in British

Columbia at a competitive price which would no longer leave the

cattle producer with the only option to send his cattle and

calves to Alberta, or whatever, in the wintertime.

I discussed this as recently as yesterday, in Kamloops, with

farmers in that area and one of the questions I was asked was:

"Would it not be possible for government, through some support

programme, to make grain available at the same price as

pertains in, let us say, Alberta, with the incentive that the

cattle should remain in British Columbia and that by raising

larger numbers it would become feasible to have our own packing

plants in British Columbia, which would, in turn, create more

jobs?" This would in fact be another example of the general

philosophy which the Minister just talked about, a minute ago — that we should do all we can to have a complete industry,

whether it happens to be, as he quoted mushrooms or, as I am

quoting, beef cattle.

It seems to me, and I've read a little bit, that the beef

producers are not really keen on subsidies as such. I could be

wrong on that, but the last press release from B.C. cattlemen

suggests that they're not very keen on subsidies, although

they're debating the whole question of the farm income

assurance programme and an entry into it. But if it is simply a

matter of feed grain being available at competitive prices,

this would seem to me to make a lot of sense. Maybe the

Minister would care to comment on, first of all, whether he

thinks it's a good idea, and whether, in fact, he has been

asked by the industry to consider the prospect.

Finally, on this whole question of policy and planning, we

have read quite a bit lately about the concern over grazing,

the wise use of grazing lands and the whole question of farmers

who are raising stock who want longer grazing leases or rentals

rather than the one-, two- or three-year arrangements that

pertain. I was very interested at the end of last year to read

the report by Dr. Hudson, Dr. Brink and Dr. Kitts who issued a

report, which I am sure the Minister is well aware of.

One of the major thrusts of that report was that a major

obstacle to good land management is intense rivalry between the

different departments of government. Those are the words used:

"... intense rivalry between different government agencies

for the limited resources of land and budget allocations." The

other report which was brought out a little later by Alastair

McLean stated also that there is a greater need for integration

of efforts among departments but particularly in terms of

incentives to farmers to raise stock. It would make a lot more

sense if the lease ran over a longer period of time. Dr. McLean

suggests 10 years, according to the report I read.

There's a great deal of concern and puzzlement among consumers again on the

whole question of beef prices. It seems to me that just six months ago the prices

for beef were going through the roof and within a few months we suddenly find

now that we are in an overproduction situation. I wonder if the Minister could

give us some answers as to the present situation and policy planning for the

beef industry. Under the vote dealing with farm income support he might choose

to deal with issues of wise use of grazing lands and the whole question of how

long leases should run. As recently as yesterday I was told by farmers that

this is a far more important issue than the Minister seems to realize. Maybe,

that being the case, he could give us some answers today that would encourage

farmers to accept that the Minister is aware of the importance of this length

of lease and whether or not he is willing to increase it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I was disappointed in the

correspondence from Sid Thompson. I suppose I was disappointed

for another reason as well, and that was that he sent me a

letter and issued it to the press at the same time. I thought

that at least he could have waited until I had an opportunity

to reply before releasing both to the press. The reply never

did make the papers. He responded to my reply and then I

responded to his response, and that has been the end of it so

far. I think, to some degree, he showed his lack of knowledge

of the agricultural industry in the province. Perhaps that more

than anything else.

I think that B.C., from the point of view of the lack of

vertical integration in the agricultural industry, is the best

jurisdiction in the whole of the North American continent.

There is less vertical integration here than anywhere else, not

just because we are better in B.C. but simply that we have

limited areas of good agricultural land available, scattered

over a very large province, and with many types of agricultural

practice. The opportunities for vertical integration just

aren't there so it just doesn't exist in B.C. I suppose in my

response to his response I dealt adequately with his questions.

He hasn't felt called upon to reply or to issue any more public

statements.

Dogs. Vote 6 — because there may be others who want to get

in on the dog question.

The food council. I don't think I can add much more to what

I have already said, other than to say that the two

representatives of the B.C. branch of the CAC, in saying that

letter that no one has commented on yet — and I think I will —

is that they said they felt they could serve the interests of

their community best by withdrawing from the food council to be

in a position where they could make representations to the food

council or to the provincial marketing board. While I am

disappointed to lose them as members of the Advisory Food

Council, I am encouraged that they are going to

[ Page 1068 ]

continue doing what they think is the best effort they can

to at least examine the cost of food, if not bring about any

reduction.

The cattle industry and the idea of getting feed grains at a

special price. It would have to be a special price rather than

a reasonable one because feed grain marketing in the country

has been changed so that B.C. farmers can go now, if they like,

to Alberta and buy feed grains at off-board prices and make

off-board arrangements to acquire feed grains. It doesn't mean

that the price is any lower though, and that's the problem as

far as expanding the agriculture industry in the province. The

only way we can get the price down would be to subsidize it,

subsidize freight or some such thing. We are looking at

alternatives rather than that, although for a number of years

and in 1974 we have continued the practice of a freight subsidy

for feed grain coming out of the Creston Valley.

I think a better way of looking at the cattle industry in

the province is the proposal that we have discussed at some

length with the cattle industry itself, and that is the idea of

providing a facility for a feedlot operating in the interior of

the province that will provide another market for animals that

are being fed, will give the sellers of that type of livestock

an opportunity to sell in another market, and perhaps will

encourage the development of other feedlots in the province,

and will provide livestock for the packing plants that do exist

in the province.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: How many are there in total? Well,

Intercontinental, of course, is a large one. Apart from that,

there are federally inspected slaughterhouses in many parts of

the province. In the valley the Dawson Creek one, I think, is

federally inspected now.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver-Point Grey): Why did

Canada Packers quit?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Why did they quit? There isn't the

volume of livestock in the province right now to keep even one

packing plant, such as Intercontinental's, going at the

capacity at which it should be working in order to operate

economically. Intercontinental has....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yes, they are moving both ways. They're moving both

ways. Hogs are coming in here from Alberta and being killed in the valley. Beef

are moving both ways, but generally the beef go before they are sent to the

marketplace. But Intercontinental isn't getting a sufficient supply. This is

one of the reasons that we want to encourage the development of feedlots operating

in the province so that there will be enough livestock to keep Intercontinental

going in the province.

Grazing. I don't admit that there is intense rivalry for

limited resources. I think it would be more appropriate to say

that we now recognize our resources are limited. It has been a

gradual awareness over the years. Before that we had so much

forest land, so much open land, so much land of all kinds in

the province that we couldn't contemplate the day when there

wouldn't be enough of everything.

We now realize that there are finite limits to all kinds of

land and lands in total, and we have to make the maximum use of

the land for all purposes. Agriculture has always been willing

to co-operate with other resource users to get the optimum

multiple use of our land resource, and we want to continue

doing that. We sometimes find that other resource users are not

quite that ready to share land with agriculture, but we are, so

far, willing to share it with them.

Mr. Wallace: What about length of tenure?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: There have been two types of tenure

in the past — long-term leases and the permit, the annual

permit. The report that came down recommended rather than that

that there be the 10-year leasing. Now that report is being

released in the form of a report and it is being examined by

the industry, by the government departments involved, and there

will be some government policy coming out of that report.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Just a couple

of quick questions before we leave this planning.

It concerns me, Mr. Chairman, when I think of actually how

much planning we are doing, how much research is being done in

the field of agriculture to make better use of the literally

millions of acres of land that exists in the northern part of

our province.

I have had some discussions and correspondence with the

Minister on research which was being done by the federal

Department of Agriculture at Beaver Lodge with regard to

growing vegetables and other crops in the north. I understand

Ottawa is supplying an ever-decreasing amount of money to

research. The Minister knows as well as I do that, for

instance, in the Fort Nelson area alone, by a federal

government survey, there is over one million acres of arable

land that can grow vegetables up there but there has to be more

research done.

When we are talking about, particularly, the emphasis then

over the last three years on the decreasing amount of land

which is available and which at the present time is growing

what we

[ Page 1069 ]

consider in British Columbia to be a weed, in the form of

aspen and poplar trees. It could be used for production of

foodstuffs. It concerns me, Mr. Chairman. I don't think

sufficient research is being carried out to utilize those

millions of acres of land.

Certainly, with the British Columbia Railway now running

into the Fort Nelson area, transportation wouldn't be that

great a problem. I would like to see more emphasis, either

working with the federal government or, if we have to do it

ourselves, more emphasis put on research so that that available

land could be put to production. I'm sure the Member for Atlin

(Mr. Calder) has land in his area that could be cleared and put

to agricultural production. But we are so concerned on one hand

about our diminishing amount of agricultural land, where we are

buying up millions of acres in the province, hundreds of

thousands of acres....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I'll get to that under the Land

Commission, yes. But there has been a great deal of emphasis

put on the preservation of farmland, and here we have a

situation where, on the other hand, there are well over a

million acres of land that could be used in food production.

All we need is more research.

There is one other area I would like to ask the Minister

about, and it could be classified probably as economic

development, but that is a method or a plant to extract bee

venom. Now I've had some correspondence with the Minister on

that.

Here is a substance which at the present time every fall in

British Columbia goes to waste. Bee venom is very expensive. It

is used in drugs. These bees, particularly in the northern part

of the province, have to be killed off every winter, and that

venom is not extracted.

As I say, I've had correspondence with the Minister. I

wonder if he would make any comment as to any forward planning,

because it's a rare substance. It could be a very profitable

organization, but it needs a little push from the Department of

Agriculture.

You're talking about subsidizing grain for the cattle industry in the interior

only from the Creston Valley. Why not reinstate your feed grain subsidization

policy from the Peace River area? We have the British Columbia Railway. There

was a feed grain subsidization policy at one time which allowed the cattle industry

to buy grain from the Peace River area. The freight rate was subsidized. I suppose

that when you do that you run into a problem where those in the cattle industry

in the Peace River area feel that they're being discriminated against because

they have to pay. They don't get any subsidies for the movement of their feed.

So it has to be worked out so that everybody is treated equally.

But certainly because of the fact that we own the railroad,

even though it's losing money, we should be doing some research

into this area. Maybe the Minister would comment.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo

the Member's concern about the federal government's attitude

towards research. It has been backing away from research in the

province — I think in all provinces, for that matter.

I suppose that there are many reasons for less research

being done. It costs a lot more to do research because, for one

thing, salaries have gone up; the cost of everything going into

research has gone up. I believe at Agassiz the man in charge of

research is Dr. Miltmore. As he put it so eloquently on one

occasion, all of the easy things have been done, so it costs a

good deal more now to achieve anything in the way of results in

research. All of the easy things have been done.

The federal government has been cutting down on the amount

being spent. We're rather reluctant to move in to fill the void

because that might encourage them to cut down even faster. We

tried rather to discuss with them particular projects that

should be followed by the federal government in pursuing

research either in B.C. or in the neighbouring province that we

would benefit from. We've had some co-operation from that.

We're doing something, perhaps, that's a little bit

different — for B.C. at least. It has been proposed in the past

but it never met with the support of the administration of the

day. We are doing something a little different to try to bring

the two departments closer by moving some of our staff

physically on to federal government research stations to try to

get more in the way of liaison in work that's being done.

We're working more closely with the university. Each year

the amount going to the university for research has been

increased. I would like to see it continue to increase and

increase at a faster rate.

You talked about the aspens. There has been one experiment,

for example, that might be of some interest to you. That is the

hydrolyzed sawdust one that was started, actually, by a private

researcher some two years ago, financed in part by the

Department of Agriculture — using hydrolyzed sawdust. His

results were interesting enough that they are now being

furthered by work underway at UBC, again partially financed by

my department. It has also been picked up by the federal

Department of Agriculture at Tranquille. They're doing further

research on it. So some work along those lines is going on.

I would like to see a lot more research being

[ Page 1070 ]

conducted. I would like to see the federal government moving

back in at the level they were previously. We'll continue

making representations along those lines.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, just quickly on that point

of staff, I would like the Minister to give us some detailed

explanation of the staff increases. I notice that the Deputy

Minister's staff is up by two people, with an increase of

almost $100,000. The salaries go from $ 137,000 to $291,000,

an increase of over 100 per cent. Earlier on, when we debated

the Minister of Finance's estimates, we touched on this issue

as it would relate almost to every department as we went

through the estimate debates. While the Minister's office

itself seemed fairly much in keeping with inflationary costs

that we could anticipate, this for the Deputy Minister's office

shows some substantial increase in costs, such as the ones I've

pointed out.

While I often hear that citizens in this province are

concerned about too many people receiving welfare when they

could work, the other subject that I hear talked about most

often is on the expenses of the government's administration

itself. I recognize that the large increase in this budget is

related to farm income support programmes. Nevertheless, I

would say that the Deputy Minister's staff is reputed to be

increased by two here, but, as I say, it's an increase of

almost $100,000. The salaries generally show a very substantial

increase. Could the Minister tell us who the people are who are

involved in the increase of four in staff and what their

average salary is?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to say

that the average salary can be calculated by dividing 13 into

291. Actually, it's an increase of four, from nine up to 13.

Just look at the totals.

As far as who they are, included in that increase of four

are two research economists. One of these has already been on

staff but has been assigned to specific programmes. He is now

being assigned to the Deputy Minister's office for general

research work in the existing programmes or into new

programmes. So there are two research economists in that

increase of four.

There has been another transfer from the former office of

the markets commissioner to the Deputy Minister's office. The

remaining member would be, I suppose, another steno to serve

the research economists.

Now as to the salary levels, I think it was explained by the

Minister of Finance when his estimates were being discussed

that there are actually two years of increases included in

these figures. The estimates for 1974-75 were based on the

actual amounts being paid in 1973 because those were the only

salary figures available when the 1974-75 estimates were being prepared. In those days the practice

was to base estimates on the actual salary being paid at the

time the estimates were being calculated. So the figures on the

left, then, for 1974-75 are the 1973 salary levels. The figures

on the right for the 1975-76 estimates are what we provide for

salaries for this fiscal period. It includes salary levels

still being negotiated, and that is why I'm not sure this

explanation all came out. It's rather difficult to give precise

figures because the negotiations have still not been completed

for the 1975 calendar period. Of course, 1976 has not even

started. I can't give you precise salary figures attached to

individuals in there. I simply say that these are the global

figures within which we have to include our personnel.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

just very briefly on this matter of research funds being spent

by the provincial government in the matter of agriculture. I've

not checked into the amounts of money being spent by other

provinces in the field of agriculture across Canada but I would

suspect that they are considerably in excess of what this

provincial government would spend if the figures for research

in this area are comparable to other areas of provincial

interest.

I quite agree with what the Minister says with regard to the

federal government's attitude toward research. It doesn't

matter whether it's in the natural sciences, in the life

sciences or in agriculture, the federal government is copping

out in the area of scientific endeavour.

By the same token, however, provinces that are developing

increasing capability to further scientific effort are not

making the kind of financial commitments that they should. I

think probably in terms of capability to support research,

British Columbia historically is the worst example in Canada.

Provinces like Ontario and Quebec and Alberta have been

particularly forward-looking in the endeavours they have made

in research generally spanning all fields of scientific

endeavour. British Columbia has fallen behind.

I would like to think that the Minister might make an appeal

for support. After all, Mr. Chairman, his budget has gone up

something like fourfold this year. Is fourfold right, Mr.

Minister? Sixty million dollars. Of course, we really don't

know what you're going to spend. We know what you asked for; we

know the numbers in the book. But since your government took

office, there hasn't been very much relationship between the

numbers in the book and the amounts of money that actually have been spent.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I'll look at your department more

carefully. (Laughter.) But, in general, Mr. Minister,

[ Page 1071 ]

you would have to agree with me about Human Resources.

The Minister sits on Treasury Board, Mr. Chairman, so that

his financial interest extends beyond the narrow confines of

his own department. The generality of my remarks....

Mr. Chairman: We are on the Deputy's office, Mr.

Member, not the Department of Human Resources as yet.

Mr. McGeer: We can't wait to get there (laughter) but

we don't want to hurry past this point in our anxiety, Mr.

Chairman. The Minister has got a big interest — $60 million

from $15 million. That should give him a little bit of slack.

Therefore, this would be a time to make that long-term

commitment to science. It would be appropriate to have the

first Ministry to be discussed stand up and make such a

declaration, even if it were limited to matching the efforts of

other provinces across Canada. I certainly want to associate

myself with the remarks of the Minister on how badly the

federal government is doing in the area of research. But, after

that, we

part company because he's just as guilty.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, a

few remarks I'd like to address to the Minister in this

vote.

A short time ago, the Minister entered into a discussion

with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) concerning

research and planning in the Department of Agriculture. The

Member for South Peace River referred to the Fort Nelson area

and 1, too, would like to refer to that particular area of the

province and the fact that the ARDA surveys show that there is

in the neighbourhood of a million acres of arable land in the

Fort Nelson plains area.

We know as a matter of fact that certain vegetable crops grow well in the river

valleys up there far better than in many other areas of the province. At one

time, Mr. Minister, there was a plan underway, through the Department of Agriculture,

to establish an experimental farm in the Fort Nelson area. I think that was

a good plan then and it is even a better plan now when you take into consideration

the potential for expansion in northern British Columbia. But it would seem

to me that the onus is on the Department of Agriculture to do something tangible

and useful in that respect so that when people who may be potential farmers

wish to relocate, for whatever purpose, the Department of Agriculture will be

able to provide them with accurate information on the potential of growing vegetable

crops in the Fort Nelson area, on the potential of other types of crops that

could be grown there, the potential market for them, and just what would be

the reasonable expectation of success for any farming endeavour in that area.

I am sorry that for some reason or other the intent of

establishing an experimental farm in that area got the sideways

shuffle. It got lost. Here we are spending millions of dollars

on farm support programmes in the province, which is

commendable, when we could be at least looking at the potential

up there.

The other thing to which I would like to draw attention, in

that respect particularly, is that the cost of clearing land

has gone up appreciably in the last five years. In most of the

lands that I am familiar with in the Fort Nelson plains area

that would be suitable for potential farms, there is a heavy

growth of poplar and aspen. But this is not going to be as

great a problem very soon as it was in the past, because Tacoma

Lumber are spending approximately $3 million on the

construction of a plant designed mainly to use the hardwoods of

the Fort Nelson area in production of plywood, along with

dimensional lumber. They think they can do it successfully. It

would seem to me that that would be at least a potential market

for all of the commercial timber that would be removed from any

suitable plot of land developed by the Department of

Agriculture.

The people within your department, Mr. Minister, had several

locations picked out within easy access of Fort Nelson, in

areas that they felt would be reasonable to expect at least a

good try and an experiment on a justified basis. It is not fair

to suggest to a few people up there that they should bear the

whole load themselves of doing all the experimentation for the

Department of Agriculture and the people in the Province of

British Columbia when a little bit of assistance on a

controlled basis would certainly be a big help. If you would go

in and develop an experimental farm (and it shouldn't be a

small farm of 10 or 15 or 20 or 50 acres, but at least 1,000

acres in size) and develop it on Crown land, which would really

cost you nothing, you could probably recapture from the sale of

the timber on that land, a fair amount of the actual costs.

This should be documented, too, so that people going into that

area would be able to know what they could expect in net

dollars of expense for the development of farmland.

The potential is there to a limited market, Mr. Minister.

The market, in my opinion, would be mostly north — to the

Yukon, to Alaska, and to the North West Territories. They need

foodstuffs. They certainly need potatoes and carrots and onions

and cabbages, and that type of truck garden can be grown to as

good a degree as anywhere in the Province of British Columbia.

Then we can expand from that perhaps into limited cattle

production for specified markets up there and beyond.

I think you did a great disservice to the agricultural

industry and the potential of that particular part of the

province by discontinuing the

[ Page 1072 ]

plan, or at least delaying the plan to develop an

experimental farm in the Fort Nelson area.

The Member for South Peace River also commented on the

subsidy that was involved for the transport of feed grains to

the other parts of the province from the Peace River. I think

it should be reinstated. Certainly there is a market for grain

today.

If you are really concerned about the people in British

Columbia, probably in the Cariboo, in the Kootenay area or

wherever, establishing a feeder cattle market, then you're

going to have to get grain to them at a reasonable price. This

is one way in which that could be done. I would like to hear

the Minister's comment, particularly on those two areas: the

one of the experimental farm in the Fort Nelson area and the

other about the reinstatement of the subsidy that was involved

for a number of years for the transportation of feed grain from

the Peace River to other parts of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, he's gone, Mr. Chairman, but

the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) raised

the question of the actual amount being spent on research in

the fiscal period 1972-3 — that's when we took office. The

amount provided for research was $50,000. In the next fiscal

period it went up to $65,000, which was an increase, although

not all that much. In 1974-75 it was increased to $125,000,

with an additional $25,000 being made available from DATE

(Demonstration of Agricultural Technology and Economics) funds.

So from $50,000 in 1972-73 it went up to actually $125,000

spent in 1974-75.

In the current fiscal period the amount for university

research is $125,000. We're hoping again, by agreeing on

programmes under the DATE programme with the university, that

we will be able to at least match last year's expenses.

I'm sorry, last year was $100,000 to the university plus

$25,000 from DATE for a total of $125,000. This year it's

$125,000 initially and, we hope, another $25,000 from DATE to

increase it again. So the actual provision of $125,000, with

the expectation of more, compares very favourably, I think,

with the $50,000 that was the habit some three years

previously.

Agriculture at Fort Nelson. This research programme which you were talking

about was being promoted and pushed by a member of the Department of Agriculture

staff who was director of production services at the time. I think four years

ago he had time to work on that programme and to push it quite actively. Since

then he has been promoted to Deputy Minister of Agriculture and just hasn't

had the time to work on that particular project. It's still very much in his

mind that something could be done usefully in that direction, but so far he

hasn't had much opportunity to do more than think about it and plan it.

Feed grains. I have some reservation about doing anything

that will increase feed grain production or grain production in

the Peace River area. The record of crop failures, I suppose,

is unequalled anywhere else. That's one of the problems — the

fact that they harvest so much of their crop in the spring

after it has been under snow for a long winter, as a rule. I

would rather encourage livestock production in the Peace River

and consume the grain that is produced in those areas. I would

rather continue the programme of encouraging people to switch

to forage production. The alfalfa-pelleting mill is an example

of encouragement in that direction. Possibly, again, I would

encourage in specific areas, because of the isolation of the

Peace River area, the production of seeds rather than feed

grain. Those are the directions in which I prefer to move.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Minister, this matter of the

production of forage grains and alfalfa and certified seeds is

great. There's nothing wrong with it. But it's a rotation crop,

as the Minister well knows. Anything that is put into alfalfa

production this year will be taken out three or four years down

the road and ploughed under. The legumes in the soil will

produce tremendous feed grain crops, at that point, of either

oats, barley or wheat. It's an interlocking programme. Anyone

who looks at their total assembled land for potential forage

production looks on it on the basis of rotating the crop every

three to four years. So we're still going to have a large

production of wheat, oats and barley in the Peace River country

even though we do the utmost in the production of alfalfa and

some of the other forage grains and specialized seeds.

It doesn't follow that we should detract from the production

of forage seeds or that we should detract from the production

of barley, wheat or oats. It's part and parcel of the rotation

system that the farmers will have to use in any long-term plan

for agricultural production in the Peace, as well as any other

part of the province.

To suggest to the farmer that he should set his sights on a

complete change of pace and a different direction as far as his

production is concerned isn't correct. He could do it for a

period of two or three years, and then he's going to rotate. He

has to do that, the same as you do with the production of grass

seed where you have to plough down the fields and rotate. It's

something that you have to take into consideration in any

farming economy that's going to be viable in the future of our

country.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, under the planning

concept of the department, I must commend the Minister for the

manner in which he has reorganized the department and broken

down its

[ Page

1073 ]

several services. I wonder if the Minister would be good

enough to indicate to the committee exactly where we're going

in agriculture in British Columbia, from a planning point of

view.

Let's take a couple of starting points and see what the

Minister might have to fill in by way of answers.

First of all, it is suggested that perhaps in five years,

certainly in less than 10, the food sources available to

British Columbia from the State of California will be gone. All

the fresh fruit and vegetables that we currently import from

the State of California will no longer be available to us and

we will perhaps be supplied by other producing areas of this

continent. That's number one.

Secondly, I think the Province of British Columbia currently

is self-sufficient in fluid milk. We are self-sufficient in

eggs; we are self-sufficient in apples; and, from time to time,

I think we achieve self-sufficiency in our poultry products.

But other than these I think the Province of British Columbia,

with its producer segment in agriculture, is not able to feed

the people of British Columbia.

The Minister said, in response to matters raised with him by

the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), that there was on the

eastern side of Vancouver Island a very serious problem with

regard to irrigation. He also pointed out to that Hon. Member

that there had been vast changes in the processing industry and

he could not assure her, or the farmers in her area, that there

could be a processing industry reinstituted on the eastern

slopes of Vancouver Island.

He indicated that the same situation would face other areas

of this province. Now if that's to be the case, and since we

certainly are only a one-crop-a-year kind of province, I would

like to have the Minister of Agriculture tell the committee,

based upon the studies made by his department, what's going to

happen in five, 10 or 15 years so far as the ability of British

Columbia to sustain itself with food. What are we going to do

for fresh vegetables? What are we going to do for potatoes? We

don't produce enough potatoes now to serve our total needs. The

small-fruit berry industry is gone — disappeared.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): Except for the Fraser

valley.

Mr. L.A. Williams: But it's fast disappearing from

the Fraser Valley, I can tell you. If it's not gone from the

Fraser Valley now, Mr. Member, just hold your breath for a few

minutes and it'll be gone because the costs of carrying on that

aspect of agriculture competitively is making it virtually

impossible for those farmers to sustain themselves.

Mr. Rolston: Will you get them the market for

raspberries?

Mr. L.A. Williams: This is exactly the question that

I am posing to the Minister. What kind of planning are we doing

in the Department of Agriculture so that the producer segment

is going to be able to supply us with what we need? Because a

certain Member for Dewdney would like to continue to enjoy

raspberries and so would all of his constituents. But we can't

have a processing plant to service those needs up near Comox in

order to utilize whatever the production might be from farms in

that area of British Columbia, and I wonder just where we are

going.

We have a budget for this total department which has

increased from $15 million to $60 million. I hope we spend it

all. But when I look at the activities as far as the policy and

planning branch and the expenditures associated with it, I

seriously wonder what direction the department is taking.

I think it is time that we began to look very seriously at

this particular problem. The Minister has admitted — and I

don't think there is anybody in this House who has any doubt

any longer — that we are a province with very limited amounts

of arable land — less than 5 per cent. We are also a province

where the areas of arable land are dispersed widely throughout

the entire length and breadth of the province from the North

Peace to the southeasterly corner, to the east coast of

Vancouver Island.

That 5 per cent arable land is dispersed. The productivity

of that area will need to be harnessed very carefully if we are

to make the maximum use of our arable land, if we are to be

able to plan the production that will take place, if we are

able to process and thereby preserve that one crop a year that

we have in order that we can produce as closely as we can the

needs of this province and, as the Minister said, be able to

encourage the people in British Columbia to buy B.C. products

and thereby ensure ourselves that somehow or other we're going

to have agricultural products that are produced without the use

of insecticides, herbicides, vice-versa, and all the other

things that he is concerned about that we can't control from

other jurisdictions.

Really it comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: what can the

Minister of Agriculture tell us is going to help the farmer in

the constituency of the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)? I

happen to know some young people who are farming in that

constituency. They have decided to try farming. They think it

would be the proper way of life. They've raised the money and

they've gone deeply into debt because they want to become part

of the agricultural community. What am I to tell the young

people, and what is the Member for Comox going to tell them,

about their future in farming in the Comox Valley? Simple as

that. What can the Minister offer by way of some encouragement

to these people that they're going to be able to survive and

prosper and make a

[ Page 1074 ]

contribution to the needs of British Columbia five years

from now, 10 years from now and on?

The Minister, as I've said, has a lot more money to spend.

But if you look closely at what he's doing, the major portion

of the money is going for subsidized programmes. We are paying

the milk producers, we're paying the apple producers, we're

paying a little bit to some hog producers and some tomato

producers, I think, and we're apparently on the verge of a

major contribution to people who are in the livestock industry.

Beef will be the biggest farm insurance programme that this

government has yet tackled.

But outside of those four areas, what are we going to do for

that farmer who's in the Comox Valley who's producing root

crops, who's prepared to grow peas and beans and things of that

nature which are in demand today and will be in increasing

demand in the future? What planning is going on for them? How

are they going to be able to assure themselves of a viable

future and keep that farm in production as part of the

agricultural economic advance in this province? I think they're

entitled to hear from the Minister. I think the Minister would

perhaps have responded under his salary vote if he'd had the

opportunity.

We talk about the shortage of natural gas in this province,

that maybe in 25 or 30 years we're going to run out. We talk

about the diminishing supplies of petroleum products. We talk

about the crisis in housing, the crisis in energy. But I'll

tell you, Mr. Chairman, nothing's going to be a crisis like the

crisis that hits us when our imported supplies of food are

either not available or are only available at prices that we

don't want to afford, and we have to look to our own domestic

production to be the major sources of food in British

Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I don't know whether we're finished

with the Peace River or not. I'll simply say this: if you had

alfalfa growing on a three- to five-year crop and plant not

wheat, not oats, but short-season barley, then the emphasis

will again be on promoting forage production in the Peace River

area, promoting livestock industry development in the Peace

River area, rather than on trying to encourage them to produce

feed grains that are going to be consumed elsewhere. That is

the direction I prefer to go with respect to Peace River

agriculture.

First, where this province is going in research planning:

it's already been pointed out, I think, that one of these

research people mentioned in salaries here has been moved from

the specific work to this office, and the other has not yet

been hired. However, I could talk a little bit about planning.

I could talk a little bit, for example, about the concerns that

he has expressed that we will be running short of food in the

province. I do recall when that was first being forecast, some

10 years ago, that it was....

People were surprised to give any consideration to the idea

that one day we would be short of food in the Province of

British Columbia. Gradually people became aware of this and, of

course, the Legislature had a lot of time to discuss that very

question some two years ago.

Everything that I can recall about my participation in the

great land debate, and the participation of the whole

government party in that debate, I recall with pride and

pleasure. I'm not sure that the Member who is now expressing

some concern about the future of the food supply in the

Province of British Columbia can look back on his participation

in that land debate with equal pride and pleasure.

I know of one occasion when he spoke publicly — I believe at

a meeting in Ladner — attacking the idea of preserving

agricultural land in the province. I'm pleased that he has come

to the point of recognizing the need to save that land, and, of

course, it is not the end of it to simply save the land.

There are a few areas of self-sufficiency. There are a few

products in which we produce enough, and there are others where

we are increasing production. He didn't mention potatoes, for

example, and if he's going by last year's figures, well then we

weren't. That is, the year before last we weren't producing

enough potatoes in the province. But this year, for the first

time, we will be producing potatoes for export and the

production will be increasing, as a result of government

policy, because the one area where we have substantially

increased potato production in the province is in the Creston

area. As a direct result of the policy of the government, the

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, the involvement with

Swan Valley produced something like 20,000 tons of potatoes in

new production in that area.

The Comox Valley, while it doesn't lend itself to the sort

of processing industry that was there previously, nevertheless,

that area currently is producing a surplus of potatoes, surplus

to local demand, and could produce more. But really the

potential for the Comox Valley is livestock production,

primarily dairy production, and to increase that rather than to

increase vegetables for processing. So that's the direction to

go there.

Other vegetables — leafy vegetables for example that are

being produced — in season we do produce enough of them. We can

increase our production substantially and have plans to do so

in co-operation with the farmers, for example. In the southeast

Marine Drive area, the Lower Mainland Farmers' Co-operative

Association, we are currently investigating the possibility of

assisting them to construct a plant that will enable them to

handle the produce more efficiently, will make more land

available to them, and hopefully increase the production of

that kind of crop so that we will be

[ Page 1075 ]

able to supply not only the lower mainland market, but the

western provinces, apart from B.C.

So there are plans for increasing food production in the

province. They started with saving the land itself so that when

we needed that land for food production it would be available —

a programme that was supported by everybody on the government

side and opposed by everybody on the opposition side, but

nevertheless was the beginning of planning for agriculture and

food production in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): First of all I don't know

whether this is the right area to take this up, but I want to

say a few things about the beef complex for the Kamloops area.

Is this the right vote to take it up in, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 6.

Mr. Fraser: Well, under the Deputy Minister's

planning, and so on, I think that this is something that

obviously the government is planning. It has hired a firm of

consultants and they have reported. The original intent, I

believe, was to find a cattle complex in the Kamloops-Cache

Creek area for the marketing of 50,000 head of cattle. The

report was made by Resource Consultants Ltd., and I understand

the industry itself thinks the idea is far too large. Where the

government are looking at 50,000 head, and a $3 million complex

in the Kamloops area, the industry thinks that is far too large

and should be around 5,000.

What I would like to say is that while I realize there are

good reasons, Mr. Chairman, for it to be in the Kamloops area,

also I think there are good reasons why it shouldn't be