1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

361 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Shortage of natural gas. Mr. Wallace — 361

Department of Northern Affairs. Mr. Curtis — 363

Notification of bankruptcy. Mr. Gardom — 363

Oak Bay Avenue explosion. Mr. Wallace — 364

Forthcoming human rights legislation. Mr. McGeer — 364

Television broadcasting from the House. Mr. McClelland — 364

Companies Act. Mr. Gardom — 364

Seattle City Light. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 364

Veterinary Laboratories Act (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 365

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 365

An Act to Limit Smoking in Public Places (Bill 42). Mr.

McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 365

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 365

Mrs. Jordan — 365

Mr. Lewis — 368

Mr. McClelland — 369

Mr. McGeer — 372

Mr. Schroeder — 374

Mr. Gardom — 375

Mr. Smith — 376

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 377

Mr. Richter — 379

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 380

Division on second reading — 385

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill 12). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 386

Mrs. Jordan — 388

Ms. Sanford — 389

Mrs. Webster — 390

Mr. Gardom — 391

Mr. Wallace — 391

Mr. McClelland — 391

Hon. Mr. Levi — 391

Beef Grading Act (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading I — 391

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to make a very important announcement to the House

today. Seated on my left is the Premier of the Province and I'd

like to announce that it is his birthday today.

I've forgotten how old he is. I don't know what he's aged in

the last year, but maybe we can find out later. But I wanted to

tell all the Members here — after you put it on the question

paper, maybe he'll answer it — that you're all invited to the

dining room today during your coffee break because there is a

birthday cake for him. We'd be glad to have you join us.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we

here in the official opposition also want to extend our

congratulations and good wishes to the Premier on this, his

birthday. Now that he has reached maturity I'm sure that we're

going to see an enlightened Premier, and we're going to enjoy

the balance of this session, as long as it might be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we join in

welcoming the Premier to whatever age he has. We understand

that he is now just as old as he has inches around the waist — something in the mid 40's. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Nasty, nasty.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're looking forward to his birthday

party this afternoon with tremendous interest, because a strong

rumour is coming from the backbench of the Liberal Party here,

that this will be the inauguration of the licensed facilities

in the dining room of the Legislature and champagne is to be

served. But if this rumour is false, I trust that no one will

tell us until we get there. We wish you well.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

Conservative Party and I are very happy to extend birthday

congratulations to the Premier. He doesn't look a day older

than when he became Premier. I don't see any grey hairs yet,

but I'm planning to try and cause a few to grow.

(Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we've had 30 seconds

of sentimentality which I appreciate very much, As a gift to

the people of British Columbia, I'd like to bring in a message

from His Honour that outlaws the opposition. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd sure love that wouldn't you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a bad idea.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid that the Speaker wouldn't read the

message.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah!

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'm

privileged to introduce another group of students from Reynolds

Junior-Senior Secondary with us today, accompanied by Mrs.

Plecas, Miss Brown and Mrs. Hadfield. This is the law class at

Reynolds, and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in the

Members' Gallery we have with us today Mr. Alistair McAskill,

of that great railroad city of Revelstoke. Mr. McAskill is the

local chairman for the United Transportation Union in that

centre, and a member of their national negotiating committee. I

would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Mr.

McAskill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we are also privileged to have as

guests on the floor of the House today: Mr. Allen Engel, MLA;

Mr. Donald MacDonald, MLA; Mr. Allen Oliver, MLA; and Mr.

Hayden Owens, MLA, all from Saskatchewan on a parliamentary

visit to our Legislature. And, in addition, representative

Edward Rice from the State of Idaho is also a visitor on the

floor of the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, are

they all socialists? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think parliamentary visitations are not

of one particular party label. And I assure you that they are

of different labels.

Oral questions.

SHORTAGE OF NATURAL GAS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in light of a statement that was made in

the press that he has met with the federal energy Minister, Mr.

Donald Macdonald — and we've got two; these Donald Macdonalds

are all over the place it seems these days. (Laughter.) Has he

some useful information he could give the House as to the

natural gas problems in the province?

[ Page 362 ]

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker I met

today with the Hon. Donald Macdonald, and his assistant Ian

Macdonald — I should have had a Campbell with me to balance

things up. We discussed two subjects: (1) the immediate urgent

problem of the shortage of natural gas that is threatened in

the Province of B.C., with the crunch coming possibly as early

as October 15, and becoming severe by November 1. In that

connection may I say that I presented the Hon. Donald Macdonald

with, in addition to an argument, the facts of the industrial

problem that we face in the Province of British Columbia, such

as, for example, that the mill at Cominco, from the figures

that we have gathered, might sustain a loss at the worst of

150,000 man-days. And I'll just pick out examples from the

research material we've gathered.

The B.C. Forest Products mills at Mackenzie in a very cold

climate, water based, may freeze — apart from the loss of

employment resulting from the notice they've already had from

Inland as to the curtailment that might be up to 60 per cent

for nine days, and that kind of thing. All of this industrial

information is very serious for the Province of British

Columbia.

I should like to add that I impressed upon the Hon. Donald

Macdonald that the El Paso company is in a better position to

make up for the temporary shortage, because it receives about

70 per cent of its gas from British Columbia, another 30 from

Texas and southern points in the United States. And really, for

anybody to suggest a pro rata reduction all around is

ridiculous because, even if that was fair, they would be

suffering a curtailment of 7 per cent while ours will be 10 or

11 per cent. They don't rely as we do exclusively upon the west

coast gas; they have a more southerly climate.

But the loss is very serious and I asked in no uncertain

terms that the Hon. Donald Macdonald place a firm hand on the

valve at Huntington and I expect to hear further from the

federal government in that respect. Otherwise I indicated to

him, in the second phase of our conversation, what the Province

of British Columbia was intending to do to protect its own

people in the future based purely upon public statements and

matter that has already been given to the Legislature, because

we don't need the kind of hammer that has been employed in the

Province of Alberta. We look for cooperation, and expect to

get it, and perhaps supplemental action from the federal

government to support our programme that will be unveiled,

hopefully, in the near future.

MR. WALLACE: Would the Minister consider providing for the

House the information and the facts and figures that he used to

give the statement to the House today, for wider public

understanding of the problem?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I see no objection to tabling. I

can't do it immediately. The figures we have as to severe damage if the

gas falls below such-and-such level, and moderate damage if it falls to

this level…and I'll have this chart reproduced and file four or five

copies at the Clerks' table before the end of the afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask

the Minister when was this information compiled, has it already

been made public, and if not, why is it made public less than

two weeks from the date when he expects the possible

crunch?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we began through the Energy

Commission to compile the information from industries as soon

as the shortage became apparent — which is what, seven or eight

days ago? It has been in my hands for possibly a couple of

days. I've given the Hon. Donald Macdonald a full brief,

including this chart, also copies of telegrams from particular

industries spelling out their particular problems. As far as I

know the man-days lost, which are estimates only, have not been

made public up to this time. We began to compile the

information as soon as we heard the announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: I will point out to the Hon. Members that there

has been a tendency to ask questions of Ministers as if they

had to report to this House on some matter that they are taking

up either with the Crown or with other governments before they

have concluded what they are doing in some other place. I want

to make clear that if you look in Beauchesne , page 148, that is

not the case.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I have a supplementary,

Mr. Speaker, on the same problem. I wish to preface my question

by suggesting to the Attorney General that one of the real

problems in the production of natural gas in the Province of

British Columbia is the fact that the exploration end of the

business for the last year has been very static, at a

standstill, or very close to it. But there is a problem and

that problem is that we must continue to explore for gas if we

are going to replace….

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a speech or asking a

question?

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. SMITH: If we are going to replace or add to our

reserves, has the Minister in any way done anything to

re-ensure and reinforce the confidence

[ Page 363 ]

of the exploration business and the companies that explore

for natural gas in this province so that they will continue to

look for that product in the areas where it is likely to

be?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, drilling rig activity in

the Province of British Columbia has been at a higher level

this year than last year. The recommendations of the Energy

Commission for increasing, where necessary, the tempo of

exploration activities are set out in their report.

DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

MR. CURTIS: To the Premier: would he inform the House if he

is close to establishing a department of northern affairs in

response to requests from within the party itself?

AN HON. MEMBER: On his birthday? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I will take that as notice of question.

(Laughter).

NOTIFICATION OF BANKRUPTCY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question of the Attorney General. I see from press statements

that the stock of Geo-Star Resources Limited was traded for 16

days after the company was legally declared bankrupt in

Vancouver, the trades going through the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, and the figures given in the press of 61,450 shares.

I would ask the Hon. Attorney General as to whether or not he

is going to direct either his own offices or the court

registries in the province to notify the Stock Exchange when

companies go bankrupt, because this is truly a preposterous and

asinine situation that has developed.

The second question, as opposed to having a supplemental,

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, is whether or not the Attorney

General will request the Stock Exchange to guarantee the losses

of any innocents. And I would ask him what steps, if any, he

intends to take concerning any of those who are not innocent,

or at least have the appearance of being un-innocent, shall we

say? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will take the first part of your question as notice

because I haven't been informed of that particular bankruptcy or…. But in

respect to your second question: the Legislature has provided that there should

be two lay representatives on the Stock Exchange and there has been some delay

because I've been trying to find the best two people to serve on behalf of the

public on the Stock Exchange board of governors. I think that will be of some

assistance, but the first

part I have to take as notice. I am not familiar with

the transaction.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary question, I'm not talking about

the way you are going to enrich the Stock Exchange. My question

is just simply this: are you going to instruct the court

registries to notify the Stock Exchange, or set up some kind of

means of communication between them so that you don't have the

shares of bankrupt companies traded in the Province of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we will take that

suggestion under advisement.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I question to the

Minister of Agriculture. In my talk yesterday afternoon on Bill

9, I asked him if he would table in the House the

recommendations given to him by the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture. I'd like to ask him for a statement at this time

if he will table those documents, correspondence, from the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture? You asked the British Columbia

Federation of Agriculture to do a study and come up with

recommendations. I understand that they have given you

recommendations regarding farm income assurance. Would you

table those with the House?

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

the Federation of Agriculture was given funds. They were given

authorization to spend funds which would be reimbursed by the

government to do commodity studies within the province. They

have delivered some of the studies — three of them, I believe,

to this date. There are still some to come in. I haven't had an

opportunity to read any of them completely myself yet. I have

no objection to tabling them. I think it is three I have

received so far. I don't have them with me today, but I have no

objection to making those available to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that if you

look at page 148 of Beauchesne , information upon matters which

of their nature are secret, such as decisions or advice given

to the Crown or to officers of the Crown, are not documents to

which you are entitled unless the Minister agrees to table

them. I think that is important for both the Ministers and the

questioners to know.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. In an

article in the

September Country Life , it clearly refers to the first part of

the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture brief on farm

policy, as outlined in full in last month's issue, as having

met with the ready acceptance of the Minister of Agriculture.

It goes on to say….

[ Page 364 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order. Information which is

already available and set out in public documents is not

susceptible to questions in question time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is the second part of the brief that

I'm after, the one to do with farm income assurance, Mr.

Speaker, and it hasn't been set out in public yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that matter is up to the Minister if he

wishes to table it.

OAK BAY AVENUE

EXPLOSION

MR. WALLACE: Could I quickly ask the Minister of Public

Works if he has any further information regarding the cause of

the explosion on Oak Bay Avenue last week?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Member for

Oak Bay knows the inspector was on the job the day of the

accident and I was told that the report was on the way over to

my desk now from Vancouver.

FORTHCOMING HUMAN RIGHTS

LEGISLATION

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A general question,

Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Attorney General if he agrees

with the chairman of the Human Rights Commission that the human

rights legislation in British Columbia is lousy, and if there

will be new legislation coming in this session as she

suggested?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I counsel the Hon. Member in patience.

(Laughter.)

TELEVISION BROADCASTING

FROM THE HOUSE

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask

you a question, but I understand I can't do that so….

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry.

MR. McCLELLAND: …. . so what I'll do is direct my question to the Hon.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who was chairman of the committee of the

House which studied television broadcasting, among other things, and ask him:

in the light of the Speaker's comments about the butchering and editing of television

broadcasting, are we to understand that we will not be allowing private carriers

to handle the broadcasting of television, or at least the distribution of television

broadcasting from this House, because if that is true….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no committee in

standing at the present time on the subject, and therefore the

Minister of Highways is in no position in his office to answer

the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must be able to ask

that question of someone because it is very important because

it goes contrary to any of the recommendations that were made

to this House by that committee, and I would just like to ask

the ex-chairman if he would care to comment on that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not within his competence at this

time.

COMPANIES ACT

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.

The Companies Act came into force on October 1 and I understand

that the Order-in-Council passing the regulations to the

Companies Act , about 24 pages in length, was passed on

September 25, and the regulations are not yet printed.

I ask the Attorney General if he's prepared to assure any

defaulters under the regulations that they would not be taken

to task for breaches until such time as the government has the

regulations printed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take steps to make sure that

company lawyers are not responsible for the acts or omissions

that may occur as a result of this.

SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. In the light of his statement, Mr.

Speaker, which was reported in the press today, following my

question 141 on the order paper to the effect that the Province

of British Columbia has accepted and banked the moneys received

from Seattle City Light for rental of land which is threatened

with flooding, but apparently which this government does not

wish to flood, may I ask what steps are being taken to return

this money so we don't get into the position of accepting money

on a contract that we have stated we intend to break?

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

I think we've made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we're prepared to return all

rental funds with respect to the Skagit, ever since the date of the early agreement.

[ Page 365 ]

Introduction of bills.

VETERINARY LABORATORIES ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Veterinary Laboratories

Act .

Bill 31 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance Act .

Bill 39 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.

AN ACT TO LIMIT

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 42

intituled

An Act to Limit Smoking in Public Places .

Motion approved.

Bill 42 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move the House proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 9.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I have no intention of taking

up very much of the House's time today. I think I got most of

my feelings on this bill across in the discussion yesterday

afternoon.

I feel that there is going to be a good feeling out there in the agricultural

industry, the food-production

section of our province, because of the way this

Act is worded, the principle that's involved and the flexibility that is there

for the Minister and the Department of Agriculture to consider each commodity

separately, with the different conditions and terms that are necessary for

the particular commodity that they're growing.

I believe that for years and years past, if the Ministers of

Agriculture in this province had had a bill like this that they

could have worked under, agriculture would not be in the

position it's in today, struggling for its very survival.

I'd like to repeat that I am very pleased to see that there

is no attempt to try to put a subsidy on food at the retail

level, where the cost to the province would be at least twice

what would end up in the grower's hands by the time it has

passed through the retailer, the wholesaler, the transportation

companies and the various people connected with the

agricultural industry, who always seem to survive and always

seem to make a profit. And yet the farmer never seems to be

able to reach this level; he is essentially a taker of prices;

he has always been a taker in this province, with no room to

manoeuvre, no room to demand and no way to adjust his income to

the realities of his cost of production. A system like this, I

feel, is going to assist him far more than a subsidy that would

be put on at the retail level.

I would say to the Minister that the way I read the bill

now, the flexibility that I see in it, the moves that he will

be allowed to make under this legislation when it is passed — and I repeat — would have been appreciated, I'm sure, by former

agricultural Ministers for the past 50 years in this province

of ours.

I would like to see it go through in its present form. I

know it is going to work. I know the agricultural community

needs it and wants it and I'm sure when the next year or two

goes by and the agricultural department's reports are filed,

that the whole House will realize that we moved in the right

direction on this bill.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If there was ever any

concern on our part as to the stability of this government in

relation to its agricultural policies, it was certainly

confirmed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops' "fluffabuster"

yesterday and this afternoon. I'm afraid he leaves the

competency of our committee somewhat in question in light of

his statements, and his statement just now that he hopes this

bill goes through in its present form, because he said

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that he saw nothing in the bill. That's

exactly what the problem is. He is right on, because there is

really nothing but a statement of philosophy in this bill.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops talked at great length about

flexibility. As I listened to him I didn't know whether, in his

talk of flexibility, he was describing the original Playtex

that came to British

[ Page 366 ]

Columbia. For the gallery that are mostly males, Playtex is

the one that is "killing" you all the time.

The Member for Kamloops talked about MLAs' salaries

yesterday in relation to agricultural income. I really couldn't

quite follow him, and Hansard isn't ready today to prove this

point, but I would just suggest for his information, Mr.

Speaker, that if the average producer in British Columbia, who

is indeed competent and professional in his management, could

look forward to the guaranteed income that the MLAs of this

province are now receiving, then they would indeed be cheering

this Act.

Mr. Speaker, for this government and the Minister of

Agriculture to suggest that Bill 9, as it is written, is one of

the major reasons for calling this expensive fall session of

the Legislature together is nothing, when you read it, short of

a disgrace. And if this legislation as it's drafted in this

bill is all that you have to offer to the agricultural people

of British Columbia then, Mr. Minister, you ought to hide your

head in shame.

But, in saying this, I would like to make this one point

very clear, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate we are debating

the principle of this bill, the principle of farm income

assurance in British Columbia. That is the principle that the

Social Credit Party and the Social Credit official opposition

fully and irrevocably supports.

We believe the producer in British Columbia has a

fundamental right to a stable income every year, equal to his

counterparts in other sections of society and industry. He has

a right to a return on his capital investment and he has a

right to a management fee. He has a right to a retirement

programme and — I would like to emphasize this very strongly,

Mr. Speaker — he has a right to the same fundamental freedom as

every other citizen and every other worker in the Province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis of concern in the Province of

British Columbia and that crisis of concern is in the minds and

in the words of the producers of this province and that crisis

revolves around two major points: one, the need in British

Columbia for a stable and equitable income for the producers

and, two, their right to their basic freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind you that producer

returns in all of Canada, as well as British Columbia, have

always been a problem to the agricultural industry for many

reasons which I won't go into at this time.

The acute crisis of concern on the part of the producer in British Columbia

was precipitated by this NDP government when they first made a lot of election

promises to the farming community that they have not been able to keep, and

also when they took away the fundamental freedoms of the farmers in British

Columbia in Bill 42, a bill which, in fact, gave the government complete land

control in our province at the obvious expense of the farmer. That bill, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest did, in fact, make a scapegoat for foreign philosophy

in this province of the producers of this province.

That bill is passed and it is law in British Columbia today,

and that is why there is a crisis of concern on the part of the

farmer, and that is why the NDP government and the Minister of

Agriculture must now stand up and be counted and produce their

legislation.

The Minister stated at that time, and he gave the farmers at

that time, assurance that this government would solve the

age-long problems and the new problems of the producers in

British Columbia, and that they would provide an equitable

return, and that they would do this and introduce this

programme at this special fall session of the Legislature. Mr.

Minister, you spoke — through you, Mr. Speaker — for your

government. You brought on the crisis for your government. You,

Mr. Minister, made those promises in this House and outside

this House, and now the farmers of British Columbia and we say

to you — produce; produce the programme; produce the stable

economic income and fair return for the farmers of this

province.

We are supporting, Mr. Speaker, the government in the

principle of this bill, the stated principle, which clearly

outlines in its title farm income assurance for the farmers of

British Columbia. We say again, as we support this principle,

Mr. Speaker, through you to this government, to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is busy talking, to the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and to all those

backbenchers — produce that programme and produce it now in

When one reviews the statements by the Minister on Bill 42

as it relates to the principle of Bill 9, and when we review

the statements that the Minister has made outside this House

and other Members of the government have made outside this

House, we must come to the conclusion that what they have said,

in effect, is that they will trade off the undesirable but

legal position of the farmer being tied to his land in our

province for an income-stabilization programme. In so saying

this, Mr. Speaker, in that debate and in other statements

outside this House, the Minister has admitted the government's

responsibility for this situation. He has admitted the

government responsibility for the undemocratic position in

which the farmers find themselves, He has admitted complete

responsibility for this plight.

Yet now he proposes, if we can read between the statements

that he does make — his vague statements — after admitting this

responsibility, that the farmer must not only assume some of

the original responsibility for his returns but he must also,

by using his own labour and his own commodities, assume a major

share of the government's

[ Page 367 ]

responsibility in any programme that comes in.

If the Minister admits that the government forced the farmer

by law into an undesirable and undemocratic position with

severe financial penalties and there is no way that the farmer

can legally or factually recuperate his freedom or his

financial loss, then I suggest it is the responsibility, and

the full responsibility, of the government and the people of

British Columbia to make up the full value of any

stabilization-income programme for producers.

To ask the farmer, in light of the nationwide historical

problem on incomes, to assume this responsibility that was

inflicted on him by this government is just like asking the

farmer to sing at his funeral, and especially when they ask him

to rejoice about it.

The history of the producers' returns in British Columbia as

they are influenced by weather, subsidized imports,

distribution costs, labour problems — just as a few examples — are such that the farmer simply cannot afford to pay the

premium that would be necessary in any type of programme that

the Minister is suggesting and still be able to recover his

losses — and still be able to maintain an equitable position in

relation to his counterpart in industry in other parts of

British Columbia society.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of a farm income assurance

programme is good; it may well include federal responsibility.

But we believe it is the responsibility, and the full

responsibility, of the government and the people of British

Columbia.

In speaking to the philosophy of this bill as it is

encompassed through the body of the bill, I would again ask the

questions of the Minister that have been asked before — questions we must ask again and again and again: where is your

evidence, Mr. Minister, that you have a workable plan? Where is

the evidence outlined as to how this programme will be run?

When will the government proceed? What are the anticipated

costs going to be? What further restrictions, if any, will be

put on the farmers of British Columbia? What form will the

administrative body take? Who will be represented on the

administrative body? And what voice will the producers in

British Columbia really have?

No details, Mr. Speaker, just a statement of philosophy;

and really another example of the open barrel of power that

this government seems to seek, or else an admission of their

complete inability to draft effective legislation and meet

their commitments.

The Minister made a lot of statements in this House

yesterday which contained information supposedly new to the

House that has not been available through Hansard , but I would

like to just touch for a moment on one or two of those

statements.

The first one was, in recalling the Minister's elation at the great new programmes

the federal government was supposed to be looking into, I found nothing new

at all and suggest, for his information, that this type of dialogue with the

federal government has been going on for years, and they really revealed no

new evidence to you. Just before the Minister leaves, I would like to ask him….

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'll be back in

30 seconds — just 30 seconds.

MRS. JORDAN: Right, I'll come back to it.

We want to know from the Minister's statements, Mr. Speaker,

his position on the federal government's suggestion that there

be compulsory participation of farmers in any programme. We

want to know his opinion on whether or not he agrees — thank

you, Mr. Minister — with production control.

But most of all, Mr. Minister, as I listened very carefully

to you yesterday, you said that your heart soared toward the

end of the meeting when finally the Hon. Minister in the

federal government, Mr. Whelan, discussed a programme on the

basis of cost production, or cost of production. Mr. Minister,

I listened very carefully, through you Mr. Speaker, and all the

time during your discussion there was this term "cost of

production." Mr. Minister, what is important to the producers

of British Columbia is not the cost of production but the cost

of British Columbia production.

I would advise the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

in the past the federal government has initiated programmes,

often in the area of disaster and some in the areas of

agriculture, and they were based on the cost of production,

indeed, but it was the cost of production on a national

average, and these programmes short-changed the producers of

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we insist that the Minister, in

summing up, please makes clear whether he is thinking in terms

of cost of production or cost of British Columbia

production.

During that statement the Minister talked about what a fair

return would be to the producer in terms of his labour. I am

sure we will get into this in later debate, but I would like to

make it very clear to the Minister that his suggestion, that $3

an hour was an adequate return to be considered for an

experienced farmer and producer in the Province of British

Columbia, is ludicrous.

Well, if you'd make Hansard available, Mr. Minister, perhaps

we wouldn't have any misinterpretation. But he said, "Is $3 an

hour enough for an experienced producer?" We say that if you

examine the wage scales in British Columbia you will find that

a plumber's helper gets more than $3 an hour. But you have to

pay over $3 an hour to get somebody to pick up your bales of

hay and load them on the truck in the field. We would like not

to hear, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, any

[ Page 368 ]

more talk of $3 farmers in the Province of British

Columbia.

While we can appreciate the problems of an income assurance

programme, we don't appreciate the Minister coming in here now

after all his assurances to us and to the producers of British

Columbia and asking for sympathy. If he wasn't aware of the

complexities of this problem, as many of us who represent rural

ridings are and have been — and most people in British Columbia

have been aware of this problem through the years — then he

either was incompetent in his statements previously, or else

the government was in a position where it would have been

misleading the farmers of British Columbia and leading them

down the garden path. I wouldn't want to suggest that either of

these statements would be true; therefore, I suggest that the

Minister eradicate this thought and any danger of such a charge

by bringing in the body to this legislation which will outline

fully what in fact he intends to do at this session of the

Legislature.

Incidentally, I must say that I am very surprised at the

Members of this Legislature — who are now out of the House

except for one remaining soul, stalwart soul — who won't

support the principle of farm income assurance in the Province

of British Columbia, or who suggest that this principle in this

bill should be delayed for six months — not rewritten, as it

may well deserve to be, but just that it should be delayed. The

principle of the bill is very clear; the farmers in British

Columbia have made it very clear; the people in British

Columbia have made it very clear: that they want green belts,

that they want an agricultural industry, and that this must be

done through an income assurance programme for producers.

The farmers in this province have listened to the doctors

talk and the lawyers talk, including us politicians; and to

suggest that we should have more talk is only to defeat their

needs and to be ignorant of their crisis of concern in this

province.

The principle in this bill is clear and we support it. The

mechanism, of course, will be another matter. I am sure that

it's not a matter of doubt that the NDP government and the

Social Credit opposition will have areas of strong conflict

when the Minister reveals what that mechanism is going to be;

but that's a matter that we can discuss in third reading. It is

also a matter that we wish to discuss when the Minister brings

in his really important agricultural legislation that he

promised for this session.

So we support the principle of the bill in order to open the

way for this Minister and this government to bring in the real

meat of the agricultural legislation in British Columbia, and

to live up to their election promises, and to meet the

commitment that all of us in British Columbia have to the

producers of British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, it's an honour for me

to have the opportunity to enter into this debate, especially

after hearing the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

speak, because I feel that anything that I would say now would

seem nice after the way she acts.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: The way she criticized the Minister and the

actions that he's taking in regard to this bill I think are

totally unwarranted. In my view she has more gall than a cocky

barnyard rooster.

MRS. JORDAN: You're right, and I've got more energy.

MR. LEWIS: She criticizes the Minister for bringing in

vague, broad-powered legislation, but I will tell you that it's

an improvement over what we saw for 20 years. The legislation

that they did bring in during that 20 years might have been

quite concise, but in my view it never did anything for the

farmers in this province for the total time that they were in

power. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in this

province during the last year…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Come up to the Peace

River and say that and we'll send you down the river on a

raft.

MR. LEWIS: …has stood up…You're better off to stay in

Victoria too, friends.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEWIS: The Minister during the last year has stood up

for farmers in this province far more than any Minister that we

have seen in the past. He has had cooperation from the

cabinet, and I feel that this bill will give farm groups that

have been living on the poverty level a chance to come out and

live with the rest of society.

MRS. JORDAN: How?

MR. SMITH: Where does it say so in that bill?

MR. LEWIS: Well, if you want some instances of where it said

so in the past, we can go into the federal legislation.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Well, just give us a chance. We gave you 20 years

and you didn't do too well.

The Member that's criticizing there spent several years in

the cabinet, and it seems rather queer to me

[ Page

369 ]

all of a sudden she is so concerned about the farmers. I

can't remember her standing up in the House and saying to the

past Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Shelford) or to the past

cabinet, "Get the lead out." In one year they expect us to turn

the whole clock around and correct all the mistakes that they

have made in 20 years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even we aren't that good.

MR. LEWIS: I would like to give you a little bit of an

insight into the problems that farmers do face in this province

and the complexities that the Minister will have to deal with

in the future. We have increased costs: lumber, in the last 10

years, has gone up three times; taxes in some areas, six times.

We also have irrigation costs that have increased dramatically

throughout all of the province. Feed costs have gone up 100 per

cent in the last year. I think that these are things that the

Minister is going to have the powers to deal with, and the

legislation has to be very broad to give him an opportunity to

work with it.

There are going to be all kinds of instances that aren't

laid down in a book, and possibly this is where some of the

faults have been in the past with federal and provincial

governments. They have tried to operate farming on school-book

learning and I don't think it can be done.

I would like to give you some conditions that exist in the

Interior of the province now and also in the lower mainland, to

some degree, because of the drought that hit the province this

summer. These are areas where the Minister can move with this

legislation, and areas where he can help the farmers. Hay

prices in the Interior and in the lower mainland have jumped

from a $30-to-$35 price to anywhere from $80 to $100 this year,

yet the consumer expects the farmer to continue to produce the

product for the same price.

The federal government has had a federal income

stabilization plan in the past where they said, "Well, if you

have a bad year, we'll guarantee your cost of production, or at

least we'll work back on a 10-year average." Now I would like

to know how many people working in the labour force I how many

people in business, how many in our total society, could go

back and average over 10 years and come up with any realistic

figure that they could live on? I don't think it could be done.

I think these are areas where the Minister can work with the

federal government to come up with some sort of

cooperation.

I am not too enthused about us becoming involved with the federal government.

I have not been too enthused with the actions they've taken in the past. I think

it was mentioned yesterday in regard to the withholding of acreage of grain

on the prairie provinces. All the experts gave the statistics in regard to production

and the fact that they had better pull acreage out of production; and look what

happened in the last two years. If we had had some realistic figures to work

on in the last year, Canada would have been far better off financially.

Farm Credit Corporation, as established by the federal

government, is a plan that is supposed to subsidize farmers, or

assist farmers, in being able to produce more food. The rate

that this corporation offers is far from being anything that

the farmer can afford. There is no way that a young farmer can

get involved in this programme, because generally you have to

be financially fixed in the first place to even apply under the

Act.

There are areas that I am concerned about in regard to this

cooperation with the federal government and the federal

marketing agency Act. The Minister has said that he has signed

us into the national egg Act. Now this is one area that I am

quite familiar with and it concerns me. At the present time the

B.C. egg producers quite familiar with and it concerns me. The

B.C. egg producers considerable cost. The present cost of

levies for a 200-case producer in the Province of British

Columbia would be $2,080.

Now with the federal plan at a one-cent levy, which they are

proposing, it will cost another $3,120, for a total of $5,200 — which I think is a fairly high price for a farmer to pay to

stabilize his industry. Now I have no objection to both these

figures being put against the egg producer because I feel that

he has been able to gain by it in the past; but I feel quite

sure that the egg industry wouldn't be interested in being

involved in this Farm Income Assurance Act, because I think

that they have paid merely to get themselves in the position

they are in at the present time.

One of the Members said yesterday, "Why should money be

spent on research?" Another one said, "Put it off for six

months." I say we've been putting off action in this province

for too many years now. I'd like to support this bill; I'd like

to ask all the Members in the House to do so. Some have

indicated that they won't, but maybe they'll have a change of

conscience before the time comes around, Thank you.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a reminder to the Member

for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) that regardless of his

interpretation of the Minister's comments, the Minister didn't

say that this bill was deliberately flexible; he said this bill

was deliberately vague. There's quite a difference.

It's a very difficult bill to support, Mr. Speaker, because

of the way it's written. We had expected the Minister would

have allayed some of our doubts about this bill and about the

directions we were going to take in providing income sustenance

for farmers in British Columbia. We thought at any rate that

[ Page 370 ]

might have got some of those answers in the Minister's

opening remarks yesterday, but unfortunately the Minister

raised more questions than he gave answers. We would only hope

that perhaps he'll give us some of the answers when he closes

debate on this bill.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition must

support the principle of income stabilization for farmers in

British Columbia. For that reason we must also support the

bill. We were unable to support a resolution in this House

yesterday to have this bill hoisted for six months because

there was much ballyhoo throughout the province before this

session of the Legislature started that we were coming to

Victoria to speak first of all about major agricultural

measures and secondly about major labour measures. Because we

came here to talk about agriculture, because we came here to

try and develop some new programmes to solve the plight of the

farmers of British Columbia in relation to their incomes, we

intend to speak about agriculture. For that reason we will not

wait six months and we don't want to wait six months.

So, Mr. Speaker, with mixed emotions, as was mentioned by my

colleague from South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), we will

support this bill. But we do have a number of questions and we

would certainly like to have answers to those questions.

One of the questions that has been raised in my mind are the

comments by the Minister that the only way we can achieve the

kind of income stabilization that the Minister refers to is

through various negotiations with all of the various commodity

groups. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we're developing some kind of

a new bureaucracy for every segment of agriculture in this

province. I wonder if we're going to have a programme for apple

growers, a programme for grape growers, a programme for potato

growers, a programme for hog marketers, a programme for beef

producers. That's an impossible situation, Mr. Speaker. We're

talking about thousands and thousands of new civil servants to

administer all these little empires.

Surely we must have some kind of a structure at the top

which will develop an overall programme for income

stabilization and not have a series of tiny little programmes

and jealousies going on between each commodity group in the

Province of British Columbia. If we do that, we might as well

forget about trying to stabilize the incomes of farmers because

we'll have negated everything that we're attempting to do.

The Member for South Peace asked for the tabling in the

House of the suggestions made by the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture with regard to income stabilization. They did make

some specific suggestions, not only about stabilization but

also about pension plans for farmers.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what the federation wants the

government to establish is some kind of a joint provincial

farmer body which would negotiate minimum price levels. When

prices reach a level above those minimums, the producers will

contribute a percentage of their income which would be matched

by the government to maintain a fund that would be used to

compensate producers when prices fall below these negotiated

minimums.

There's no suggestion there that we will negotiate for each

different commodity group and each different group within that

specific commodity group. It would be utter chaos in the whole

of the agriculture industry if we tried to do that. I don't

think the federation wanted that kind of an animal to be

created.

Certainly there would have to be some kind of a start-up

pool established by the government because without the seeds

the fund can't be established. But it is also pretty important,

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that these negotiated minimums, however

they're arrived at, are based on realistic values. That's going

to be an important issue. Whether it's done by averaging or

however it's done is going to be a major bone of contention

when we get around to providing the income stabilization

plan.

That's another reason we would like to know if the Minister

of Agriculture has any basic plans. Does he know which way we

want to go? We have to know what kind of a level we're going to

start from if we're going to get to the programme.

Such a programme, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if it's

handled correctly, has a great deal of merit. We also have to

recognize, I think, that it places the farmer in a kind of a

preferential position in relation to other businesses in other

areas in the Province of British Columbia, because other

private businesses don't get the same kind of an opportunity to

have their incomes stabilized. We have already, I suppose,

established a precedent all over Canada that the farmer does

need a little extra help from the government if he's to

continue to be able to produce the nation's foodstuff. We

accept that principle.

All we'd like to know really, Mr. Speaker, is how it is

going to be handled and how you are going to start to negotiate

those minimum prices. How much money is the government going to

have to put in? What kind of a bureaucracy is going to be set

up?

An important question, I think, is what will happen if too

many farmers decide to opt out of such a programme. Is the plan

going to collapse or will the government keep pouring in funds

to keep the plan afloat? Will the government, Mr. Speaker,

force those farmers who don't want to fall under the complete

control of the government to join the plan? In other words, Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture going to force

participation?

He asked some questions in the House yesterday

[ Page 371 ]

that were apparently posed by representatives of the Canada

Department of Agriculture, but we would like to know what your

opinion is, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. Is your

mind made up about participation? We know that in your press

release you stated that it would be a voluntary programme, that

the farmers would be able to opt in or opt out. But what if the

majority of farmers in a specific commodity group don't want to

join that plan at all? The question is: are they going to be

forced to join?

I don't know whether you were asking us a question, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, or whether you were

announcing government policy, but the indication was very

strong that the voluntary participation was rapidly going out

of the window and we were going to establish a scheme in which

participation would be compulsory, not voluntary.

Will referenda be held before any kind of a plan is set up?

And what about the mixed farmer in our society? What about the

farmer who raises hogs and raises grain and perhaps raises

fruit as well? Is he going to be forced to participate in three

different schemes? What about that farmer, Mr. Speaker?

There are too many questions in connection with this bill,

and some of those questions must be answered so that the

farmers of British Columbia know where they're going and so

that the Members of this Legislature know the government

direction in this matter.

There is some concern, as well, that because of the makeup

of this kind of a programme — in that we might get into the

position of the good farmer supporting the not-so-good farmer — that we are through government policy going to bring every

farmer in B.C. down to a level of mediocrity, If that's the

result of the kind of stabilization programme that the Minister

has in mind, then that's a very serious result for agriculture

in British Columbia.

Really, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, while I recognize the

concept of stabilization and income support, the positive way

to approach this kind of problem in British Columbia is to

establish — as we've said so many times in the House before — the kind of programmes with government support that will allow

the farmer to make the kind of living that he deserves without

any need for government stabilization. The kind of programmes

we've asked for in this House — and I asked for many times in my

comments on Bill 42 last year and in my comments in my maiden

speech last year — are things like low-interest loans for

farmers (those are necessary), loans for the development of

agriculture-related secondary industry as we proposed in the

first instance of the B.C. Development Corporation, (processing

plants for the small-fruit industry, for instance), and tax

relief.

It goes without saying that it's absolutely necessary that we move on this

as quickly as possible. At one time the NDP government seemed to be all in favour

of at least removing education tax from family-owned farms. Now that concept

seems to be in doubt, Mr. Speaker; we are not sure exactly where we're going

to move on that.

Fair compensation, Mr. Speaker, for farmers who have been

hurt by the regulations contained in the Land Commission Act.

Do you agree with that?

Drainage programmes in the areas, particularly those which I

represent in this House. I think of the Serpentine-Nicomekl

area, and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) was out there in his gumboots a couple of weeks ago,

wading around and opening up the farmland to ducks.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's a hundred acres over there that was

flooded. The gates were let open and that land was flooded and

it's now a duck reserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's called the duck bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that's the duck bill. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I must say that that land was

probably lost to agriculture because it had been flooded and

hadn't been drained, and the salinity of that soil was so much

that it was no longer of any use for agriculture. But there's a

warning here to the Minister, that if we allow this to happen

too often, and if we don't provide the kind of drainage

programmes that we need and the kind of flood relief programmes

that we need in those low areas — and they contain some of the

finest growing land in North America, and probably the only

good vegetable-growing area west of Winnipeg — if we don't

provide those kinds of programmes, Mr. Speaker, then we have

that problem of the water lying on the land and destroying that

land forever for agricultural purposes. That is exactly what

happened to the 100 acres, I think, which is now under

water.

So those are the kinds of programmes that this government

should be developing — the kind of programmes that would have

some consultation with the federal government, and hard urging

to the federal government to develop programmes pertaining to

the importation of foreign products; certainly, more and more

programmes for the promotion of British Columbia grown

products. Those are the kinds of programmes we need in British

Columbia, and perhaps a high level of income participation,

income stabilization with participation by the government,

wouldn't be as necessary.

The government, Mr. Speaker, should support the farmer, just

as he should support all business in British Columbia — help

him to make a decent living. It should pass the kind of

legislation that helps the

[ Page 372 ]

farmer farm and then, to a large degree, get out of his way.

But we are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this bill in

particular is deliberately vague, and I can't appreciate the

Minister's (Hon. Mr. Stupich) comments on that because this

House requires more than deliberate vagueness from a Minister

on a bill which has been touted as one of the most important

bills in relation to agriculture in British Columbia to date,

in the reign of this new government.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I had trouble

getting my seat there for a minute. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I don't pretend to be an expert on agriculture.

I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: I thought that would get even bigger

applause.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I read your book.

MR. McGEER: It's a good book too.

Mr. Speaker, no responsible legislature could approve a bill

of this kind, no matter how much they might be in favour of the

general principle. The debate on the bill has been inordinately

long, I believe, because there is nothing substantive in this

bill to grab hold of. We can all speculate on the wonderful

things the Minister could do under this bill; we could

speculate equally well about the dreadful things the Minister

could do under the bill; or the fact that he might do nothing

at all. Surely, the job of any responsible legislature is to

see that the bills that the legislature passes instruct the

Ministers of the Crown as to their duties under that

legislation, to limit him in case his ideas run to excess or

they are injudicious, and to give guidance — specific guidance — to those who will be affected by that legislation. And what

we've really got here is the kind of bill which is brought down

when neither the Minister nor the government has the slightest

idea of what they are going to do — not the slightest idea.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: So what they do is instruct the Legislative Counsels — there

are two of them — to go ahead and draft

an Act, which they might do on a Saturday

night or Sunday morning, giving the government power to do anything at all that

it might wish to do at some future time. I was often a critic, even frequently

a critic, of the former administration for the kind of legislation that it brought

down. Mr. Speaker, this government is using exactly the same mechanism, and

it is doing an even worse job with it, because the government is attempting

to get into many more things than the previous government got into, and still

has the same two people writing the Acts.

Any idea that you or I might have, or the elected Members,

or the public, that we are legislators that have anything to do

with drafting bills, is absolutely insane. All the bills in

British Columbia are drafted by two people. All we do is come

down and debate the pros and cons after the fact and, of

course, if these two people are busy, as they currently appear

to be, then we get bad bills to debate. (Laughter.)

After all, the hundred and some odd bills that were

introduced and passed in the last session, for better or for

worse, those bills still have not been incorporated into the

overall legislation that appears in those books. The Queen's

Printer hasn't got them yet, and we are called into session

again to debate a lot of new bills that these same people draft — the same two guys writing all the bills in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it costs, to have one of these sessions, $1

million, and we haven't done 10 cents worth of business here.

The Members of the assembly are the beneficiaries. You and I,

and the other people that get all the fat salaries — those two

guys that have to write all the bills, they don't get double

salary for the extra session — and the taxpayer, it costs him

another $1 million.

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

return to the principle of the bill, please.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, you see this is the principle

of the bill. There can't be a principle because the two people

who write all the bills in this province are too busy to write

a good bill and I don't see, even if they had the time to write

a bill, that they would be able to do so when the government

hasn't the slightest idea of what it wants to do. So, what we

get is this kind of a bill.

If you can imagine a Minister going to the two people who have to

write the bill and saying, "We've got to do something about farm

income," so they think of a title — Farm Income Assurance. They are

going to assure the farmers that they'll get a farm income. And who

would want to be against farm income assurance?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the Liberals.

MR. McGEER: Oh, we're for farm income assurance, but where

we differ from the official opposition is we're against bad

legislation, no matter how attractive the title might be.

[ Page 373 ]

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We don't think the title is the bill itself. We

think there ought to be some substance to the bill. I know that

is a funny attitude, and maybe it's bad politics, and probably

the public doesn't understand, but I don't think the

Legislative Assembly should forever try to con the public. I

think somebody in this assembly ought to stand up and tell it

like it is. And the way it is, is that there are two people in

British Columbia drafting bills, they are very busy, and we

usually get bad legislation despite their heroic efforts

because there are a lot of requests to draft legislation.

The people who are elected by the public as legislators

aren't legislators at all. They're just people who come and

debate the pros and cons of what the Legislative Counsel did

last week. The Minister, if he were able to give any

instructions at all to the Legislative Counsel, might have got

back a bill that had some substance and direction in it.

Now, we've got as far as the title because I'm sure that the

Minister thought of that, and the cabinet approved the

title.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would never use the word "assured". I

would have use "insured".

MR. McGEER: Well, we'll accept amendments; might as well,

because there is no principle. You can be as plastic as you

like with this particular bill.

Then the counsel says, "What would you like in the bill?" So

the Minister says, "I don't know. Put something in it." So what

does the Legislative Counsel then do? He sits down and he

thinks of everything that a Minister might want at some future

time and he writes it down, you see. He said that the

Lieutenant-Governor may — not "shall", mind you — he may have a

fund.

In other words, the Lieutenant-Governor may put up some

money for this plan. Since we don't know what we are going to

do, we can't say that he will put up. He may establish a

corporation, branch or agency….

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Order. We're debating the

principle.

MR. McGEER: No, I'm describing the kind of thing that you would put

into a bill, Mr. Member, if you were one of the two real legislators in British

Columbia and a Minister who didn't have the slightest idea of what he wanted

in a bill came to you and you had to sit down and figure it out on a Saturday

night because the next day someone would come with another request to draft

a bill, You've got to get something out in a hurry that will suit all purposes;

so what you do is to say that they may prescribe the powers, methods and procedures

to be followed. You wouldn't say what those were. You just say that there might

be methods and procedures. Then you would say that he might direct the Minister

of Finance to guarantee any loans. You might designate areas where you would

have a plan and other areas where you wouldn't have a plan. And then after you

had done all that and you'd thought of all the things that the Lieutenant-Governor

or an agency or a Minister of Finance might or might not do, then to make sure

that you hadn't left out any vagueness, what you'd say in another

section is

that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations not inconsistent

with all the principles that you have put down before.

Then after you have done that, you bring it down and

introduce it into the House in the full knowledge that all of

the backbenchers would stand up and say that it is

terrific.

That is how you govern in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I believed the former opposition when they

stood up with these passionate speeches on how they were going

to change the style of government. Not only would the values be

changed, the people's values, but the system would be

completely different. It was one of dedication, self-sacrifice,

telling it like it is, bringing forward exact, precise

legislation, We were going to have two sessions of the

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, not just so that the Members on the

government side could collect double indemnity but so that we'd

bring in better legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: We were going to put the committees to work; we

were going to make the legislators real legislators; we were

going to start to open up everything. The light would shine in

on the cabinet. All those things were to be done.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

And, Mr. Speaker, what do we have? Would you blame me, Mr.

Speaker, having heard those speeches for so many years, for

being just a little bit disillusioned? Because when the people

who got up and made all those speeches…at least the

official opposition, you know, never pretended to be saints.

When they got up and supported the cabinet in a slavish way — and they did — they made no bones about the fact that they were

doing it because the Premier said that that's what they should

do.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I said in a slavish fashion. And at

[ Page 374 ]

least they were honest about it. But I thought things were

going to be different, that the old ways were gone and that we

were going to have the new politics. But instead, what we have

got is the old, old politics. We had bad legislation before;

we've got worse legislation now. We had one bad session a year

before; we're having two bad sessions a year now.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

if he would please debate the principle of the bill rather than

discussing….

MR. McGEER: I don't know what other principle there is to

debate. Mr. Speaker, if you can find another way to describe

this session, I'd accept your explanation. But certainly you

cannot call this particular Act model legislation for British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is the worst example you could possibly find

for bad legislation. The title, Mr. Speaker, is fantastic. The

title is fantastic, and from there it gets worse and worse

until we get to the point where you can prescribe any kind of

regulation for anything at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that your 7-3-1 plan?

MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Speaker, the Premier makes light of

the 7-3-1 plan, whatever it is. (Laughter.) But, Mr. Speaker,

at least it's a plan, which is more than the Minister of

Agriculture has, and I think that the kind of thing….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's a zero-zero-zero

plan.

MR. McGEER: It has a name but, as the Liberal leader says,

it is really a zero-zero-zero plan. What the Minister should do

is to take this Act back, take it out in the garden as

fertilizer, let it rest in peace, and bring forward a genuine

programme for the farmers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we support the farmers of British Columbia. But

I don't care what special interest group is intended to be

benefited by a bad piece of legislation; we're not here to con

the public and no one who takes a seat in this Legislature

should do so. When a disgraceful Act is brought down in the

House we will oppose it.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to

participate in this debate. We have already stated quite

clearly what the position of the official opposition will be. I

want you to know that we are for the farmers who are out there

on the flood plains. Although the bill does not describe for us

what kind of a plan the government has in mind for our farmers

out on the flood plains, we've just heard that very eloquently

described for us.

Nonetheless we believe that there is a ray of hope that just

because there is a guarantee, just because there is some

concern over the farmers' income, we are already encouraged and

we would like to support the bill "in faith believing" — we use

that expression in my arena…profession, do you say? — "in

faith believing" we would already like to support something

that gives us a ray of light, a ray of hope for the farmers

that are out there.

The bill does enable the Minister of Agriculture to do

something. We are not sure what it is, the Minister is not sure

what it is and, Mr. Speaker, let's face it, you don't know what

it is. But we believe at least that something is about to

happen. (Laughter.)

I would like to ask a few questions, though, that come to my

mind. One is, can the farmer be given any assurance of a

guaranteed income on the basis of a contribution? Can it be

like an insurance plan, Mr. Speaker, where we pay a certain

premium for a certain protection, a certain coverage, and

expect that in the case of a loss we will be protected? The

farmer isn't looking for that kind of help. If you just want to

take the peak off the farmer's income and throw it into the

trenches of the farmer's income, all we are doing is

redistributing what the farmer already has. He can do that by

himself. We don't need Bill 9 to do that.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the

section of the

bill that talks about the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor at

any time to create funds to assist in this plan is not only

necessary but, if it is to be of any help to the farmer at all

in the future, it is mandatory. That is one question that I

have, whether a plan which involves only contributions can be

of any help to the farmer, and I doubt that it can.

I see in the bill the ray of hope that the plan can be

subsidized and I don't like the word "subsidy"; nonetheless for

the farmer it means at least a little bit of help of some

kind.

The other word that I don't like which I have heard the

Minister use quite a few times is this word "stabilization."

When you talk about stabilizing anything it doesn't necessarily

mean there's going to be any help involved. You could be

stabilized where you are right now.

It could be a status quo type of thing, like the two little

fellows who were talking about status quo, and one fellow says

to the other guy, "Well, do you know what status quo is?" And

he says, "No, but I think it is French." And he says, "You

think it is French?" And he says, "Yes, I do." And he says

"What's it French for?"

"Well," he said, "I'm not sure but I think it's

French for the mess that we's in."

Now the status quo or stabilization is not necessarily an

answer. We could be stabilizing the farmer into

non-productivity. But what I'd like to

[ Page

375 ]

suggest is that if stabilization….

That's the fifth notice that I've got. (Laughter.) Oh, I

see. I'd like to say that I don't see anything in Bill 9 about

the Premier's birthday, but we'd like to adjourn the debate for

a few minutes. I'd like to move a recess. May I have leave of

the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members accept a short

recess?

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 3:55 p.m.

MR. SCHROEDER: If I may recap for just a moment, one of the

disappointments that we see as a possibility — and by the way,

all that we see is possibilities in the bill — is the fact that

it could be a contribution plan only, not raising the farmer's

hopes for an increase in income but just stabilizing his income

where it is at the present moment.

Stabilization is the other word that the Minister is very

fond of and stabilization is also the word that does not

guarantee an income increase for the farmer.

Just before I conclude my statement in review of this bill,

I would like to say that whatever this bill anticipates, or

whatever we can anticipate for the farming community out of

this bill, this it must include: it must include a return to

the farmer which will guarantee the recovery of the cost of

production; it must cover the cost of depreciation; it must

give him a 10 per cent return on his cash investment; it must

guarantee the farmer a wage comparable to any other form of

labour that requires any amount of skill — I would suggest a

$4.75 per hour minimum; it must guarantee some provision for a

pension plan; it must guarantee the farmer the hope of a

two-week vacation with pay, Mr. Member; and it must provide

some kind of strike fund for the farmer.

Now I don't believe that we, as a party, will be happy until

we see most or all of these demands cared for in a plan, such

as is suggested by Bill 9. We will vote for the bill in

principle. When it comes to the committee stage we have many,

many questions that we want to ask. At that time, we trust that

the Minister will be able to give us answers in this regard.

Thank you very much.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

hope to set a bit of a record for brevity in this debate.

I'm very, very sorry that we find it necessary to vote

against Bill 9 in second reading for the reasons set out by my

colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday afternoon.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, the remarks

made in some detail yesterday afternoon by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. Williams). I watched during the several weeks of agriculture committee

tours this summer. I noticed how the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound gained

the respect and trust of the committee, regardless of party, and also gained,

I think, the trust and respect of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

The Member was a strong, interested and constructive committee member, and I

would suggest that if he is as sufficiently concerned as to suggest that the

bill must be opposed for a variety of reasons, then I think that the Minister

of Agriculture should be most concerned.

I also have to suggest the official opposition appears to be

paying something approaching lip service to the well-being of

the farmer, I wonder, really, where it was during 20 years in

power and why we did not see some concrete proposal with

respect to assistance to the farmer during that two-decade

period.

In

summary then, Mr. Speaker, it may not be the most popular

position to take, but I believe that it is, among the

Conservative and Liberal benches, felt to be the honest answer

and the honest position to take on this particular bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well I'm happy, Mr.

Speaker, to be a part of the breakneck pace that this

Legislature is taking this afternoon, and I'd like to make a

few comments about this particular bill.

In my view, it's a derogation of legislative responsibility,

it's legislation by regulation and it's government by

designation. There are not any legislative checks, no

legislative balance, no

definitions of the ballpark, Mr.

Speaker, or who'll play in it or when, no projection of costs,

no indication of direction and no estimate of controls.

It erodes the job and the function of the elected

representatives of this province, which is this assembly; this

assembly which, in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is subjecting itself

and lying prone and buckling under and walking under the yoke

unto the unlimited and the unfettered powers of cabinet. And

it's just not right. It's an abuse of the power of

parliament.

Now whatever this bill may do, or whatever it may plan to

do, will never be under the very revealing light of open debate

within this chamber. This is the chamber where the laws are

supposed to be made and enacted, and then it's the part of the

government to see that they're effectively administered. But

here we're giving the cabinet the power to make the laws as

well as to administer them.

Now if these procedures, which are contemplated

[ Page 376 ]

under the bill, were exercised absolutely fairly and

absolutely equitably well, that would be well and good. But

that's a test of absolutes. It would be quite possible if man

were a perfect being and if this cabinet were a perfect

cabinet; but neither are, so I say, all the more need for

greater rather than lesser democratic safeguards. It's an

excessive delegation of power, Mr. Speaker.

You know, the warning of Lord Acton rings pretty clear:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those

are the fears.

Here with this bill they'll be granting an unreserved

mandate, absolutely carte blanche, on a platter to the boys

behind the red door of cabinet, if, as, when and how they

choose to act. And that, Mr. Speaker, is not parliamentary

democracy, however well intentioned the concept may be.

I would much prefer that this party was not burdened, and

the Conservative Party was not burdened with the very

simplistic argument and statement that we are against farmers.

Obviously that's not the case. Everybody in this House is for

farmers or for loggers or for fishermen; they're for social

workers, for professionals and for all of the people in British

Columbia. But we are not, Mr. Speaker, for a bad,

ill-considered, poorly-drawn kind of legislation such as this

is, which is just blank-cheque legislation.

I remember the former administration brought in a bill a

couple of sessions ago — it was a bill to amend the powers of

B.C. Hydro, to increase their borrowing powers, Mr. Speaker,

and if I recall correctly it was $50 million. The bill was 10

lines in length — five lines in length, the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) corrects me — and it

amounted to $10 million a line. There wasn't a single, solitary

reason advanced by anyone on the government side as to the need

for the legislation and we found the New Democratic Party, in

opposition as it was then, voting for it.

We find today the Social Credit Party in the rather

ignominious position of voting for a piece of legislation

although they don't know where it came from and they don't know

where it's going. But they said they happen to like one word in

it and they're going to trust the NDP.

We do not propose to do that, Mr. Speaker; we intend to see

what they're going to do. If they're going to bring in

effective legislation, and if the legislation will spell out

the direction this government is going to take, then this

government can rest assured that we will be supporting it. But

we have no intention of supporting this type of "Open Sesame"

approach.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in taking

my place in this debate, it's rather important that I say a few

words concerning this party's position on the matter of

stabilization of farm income to the farming areas of the

Province of British Columbia. The suggestion by the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) of where we were when we

were government is completely irresponsible. Let me say this,

Mr. Speaker: the Social Credit Party in British Columbia for

many years stood alone on the matter of guaranteed income for

all people in the Province of British Columbia.

The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) many times advocated

that everyone, irrespective of what their position or what

their vocation was, should have a basic guaranteed income

supplied to them through the resources and the revenue that was

available to us from the resource potential of this province.

For the Member for Saanich and the Islands, the farmer from

Saanich and the Islands, to get on his feet and suggest that

there was anything that we have ever said that was detrimental

to the farmers in this province is complete nonsense. The

former government at least brought in the type of legislation

that helped the farmers help themselves, and that is what we

are in favour of.

We are in favour of a bill, if it has to come, with some

form of assurance for the farmer. After all, Bill 42 created a

greater problem for the farmer in this province than he ever

had to face before in his life, because for the first time he

had to look at an asset — that eventually was going to supply

him with an income for his retirement years — devaluated

because of stupid legislation on the part of the NDP. It's only

because of that type of legislation that the party is now

scrambling to try to recover itself and cover their steps by

this Act.

It's true that this Act in its present form is anything but

adequate, but there's nothing to prevent any Member in this

House from getting on his feet in committee stage and

suggesting the amendments that would put this Act into better

shape than it presently is in. That's exactly what we'll be

doing when we get to that stage of this bill.

We don't agree with a lot of the terms and the vagueness

that are included in

section 2, but I think that it's our

responsibility to stand on the floor of this House and to say

to the public at large, "We stand for fair treatment for the

farmers in British Columbia." We don't want a situation where

we'll be accused of being against the farmers, make no bones

about that, because we stand for fair treatment for the farmers

of British Columbia.

In my opinion, you're not going to settle the problems of

the farmers with this bill, although it may help. The only time

you settle the real problem of the farmer is when you put into

his hands a fair return for the commodity that he produces and

sells.

[ Page 377 ]

Now whether the urban population of this province like it or

not, they have been prepared to accept salary increases almost

each and every year of anywhere from 5 to 15 per cent, and they

have taken a position that we should subsidize the food they

eat by suppressing the amount we pay to the farmer for the

goods and the services that he produces for us. This is

absolute nonsense.

People have got to wake up to the fact that in an economy as

buoyant as it is in British Columbia the only person who has

not been able so far to return any part of the costs and

increases to the people who actually depend upon him for their

food is the farmer. If it takes an income assurance Act to help

stabilize that man so that he can receive an income that is

equal to that of any other person in industry, then we're for

it.

We know that for too long the farmer has been on the bottom

end of the economic ladder.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Socreds

did not.

MR. SMITH: We know that because of Bill 42 you have taken

away from him what would have provided an adequate income for

his retirement years. We know that in this Act there are a lot

of vague, uncertain terms. We don't like them. We are prepared

to discuss amendments when we come to the proper stage of the

bill. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, we support the

principle that a farmer is entitled to employment — that a

farmer is entitled to income that's equivalent to anyone else

who works for a living in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

reinforce and repeat what other Members of my party have said

about this bill. The Minister, when he introduced it, said it

was vague. He said it was very vague. I think he repeated the

term "vague" somewhere between 8 and 10 times in his speech. He

apologized for it, and I give him credit for having done this,

unlike other Members of his party who have taken pride in

this.

He pointed out that he really didn't know how things were

going to go. He then gave us a lengthy dissertation on what

happened in Ottawa. He promised to produce documents which he

quoted to us, or at least referred to — and he has not yet done

so, I might add. The statement he then went into, which was

about his Ottawa conference with his colleagues from the other

province, basically dealt with the question of farm

stabilization and other income. It dealt with possible plans in

the future which had not even been discussed — as he admitted

in his speech — by the federal Minister of Agriculture with his

colleagues in the cabinet there.

This legislation we have today has been put forward under the title of Farm

Income Assurance Act. It's been put forward with that title and that, perhaps,

is the only good thing about it, and the only indication in that legislation

or in the Minister's speech as to what the objective of this legislation is.

Now we, like the Members of Social Credit and the Conservatives in the House

and the Members of the NDP, appreciate the need for some sort of farm income

stabilization which has become of critical importance since the Bill 42 of last

session.

We appreciate the need for it. But simply because three

words happen to occur in the title of

an Act is no reason for

us to vote for it and to accept the foolish argument put

forward that if we don't vote for this Act, somehow you are

against farm income. If this Legislature is to debate issues of

the magnitude of this bill on those terms and in that way,

really we are wasting our time.

The objections that we have to it are in the principle — not

its objective. Its objective, fine, is to protect farm income.

But the principles embodied in it, we feel, are authoritarian

in the extreme. They are so stunningly simple, perhaps, that we

just find them quite unacceptable.

There is only one clause in this Act, one

section of the

Act, that really means very much. It's a four-section Act, and

it's

section 2 which I would like to refer to because that's

the enabling section. Mr. Speaker, that simply gives the

Minister of the Crown who's designated by the cabinet any power

he likes with respect to farm income. He can designate a fund.

He can prescribe rules and procedures. He can establish and

maintain an agency or corporation. He can prescribe its powers

and duties. He can prescribe the powers and duties and methods

of procedure to be followed by corporation, branch or agency.

He has full powers. Finally, the Minister of Finance can

guarantee, on such terms as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may approve, the payment of any moneys advanced under this

particular scheme.

He goes on to talk about "designating areas of the province

in which, and persons or classes of persons to which the farm

income plan shall apply." He, if we give him this power in this

legislation, Mr. Speaker, can announce precisely what class of

people can receive such money, and what other people are

exempt. There is no way that any farmer, any member of the

agricultural community, gets any right under this legislation

to protect his farm income. Not at all. It's entirely dependent

upon the Minister designated by the Crown, presumably the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), who has full powers

over every aspect of farm income.

We think that to give this sweeping power to a Minister in

times of peace is just thoroughly unnecessary. The Minister

himself in his speech has made it clear that it really isn't

necessary because it's

[ Page 378 ]

perfectly possible to bring in the plan commodity by

commodity, which is essential and has to be done because you

cannot bring in general rules anyway.

So what he is asking us for is this blank-cheque

legislation, and he has no real idea, if we can judge by his

speech in this House or the speeches of the other NDP Members,

as to how he is going to use it. He's got no idea of how he is

going to use it. He's got no idea of how he is going to proceed

in protecting farm income, and that is why we cannot accept the

principle of this legislation.

The principle of this legislation, which stands out like a

sore thumb, is the principle of the Legislature handing over

all power to a Member of the cabinet, to the government. We

have had three or four centuries or more of the people of the

province or any jurisdiction, in particular in the British

Commonwealth, attempting to have legislatures and parliaments

establish laws governing what groups of people or others, are

going to receive or not receive in benefits. But the people's

representatives decide these things, not the Crown in

itself.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass a few Acts like this in other areas

such as mining, and in the other areas of jurisdiction of

Members of the government, there really would be no need for

any legislature, no need for any representative of the people

to come here and discuss what is right or wrong with

legislation, because there would be no legislation. It would

all go under regulations. And, as you know, regulations in this

province are virtually uncontrollable. The recommendations of

the B.C. Law Reform Commission, with respect to review of

regulations, have not been followed by this government.

We're in a situation where we are being asked to pass

legislation which is absolute in its curbs, which gives full

powers, full rights to a cabinet Minister and does nothing

specifically for the farmer himself.

We have heard arguments that oh, well, if you bring in

legislation, if you put the words down somehow or another, they

may not be appropriate. Well, for heaven's sake, it can be

amended. Are we not amending other Acts, other bills? We've had

amendments to bills that have not yet even been discussed,

bills that haven't even been given second reading.

We feel that this type of legislation simply cannot be

accepted by this Legislature and certainly not by this party,

whatever the Minister says about the problems of farm income

and whatever the Minister says about the problems which Bill 42

created for the farming community.

Sure they have problems. And certainly we, in this party,

have asked the Minister for legislation in this area to help

the farmer. But helping the farmer does not simply give the

Minister, or should not be giving the Minister, full powers

over the farmer.

He should be an independent producer, in our view, as far as possible. If we

pass this type of legislation, he is no longer an independent producer. He simply

becomes a ward of the Crown, a serf responsible to a Minister, who, in turn,

determines his income fully and completely — and he can do it under this legislation.

It's a simple bit of legislation. Perhaps it has that one

virtue. It is simple and authoritarian and, in my view,

extremely damaging in terms of the type of democracy that we

should be trying to create in British Columbia.

Have we not had argument after argument after argument in

this House about the failing, or otherwise, of the former

Member for Kamloops, Mr. Gaglardi, and his handling of his

department through ministerial discretion? And yet that Act, in

comparison with this one, was one which tied him in small knots

as far as procedure went, as far as power went. The former

Member for Kamloops was thoroughly restricted. He had very

little discretion, if we compare the legislation he had with

the legislation that we have before us.

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

Hartley) would have been one of the first to criticize the

former Member for Kamloops had he brought in legislation like

this. He would have been on his feet. He would have been

critical. He would have been saying that it's absurd to give

full powers to a Minister, whomever the Minister might be.

Now it so happens that we all have confidence in, not only

the Minister of Public Works, but the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich). There is nothing personal in this at all.

But the fact is this Legislature is not here to hand away

powers such as this to Members of the cabinet. We are here to

scrutinize. We are here to pass what legislation is necessary

but not to pass legislation which the Minister himself cannot

justify. He simply says: "We know it's vague. We know we don't

know what we are going to do precisely. But give us this and

we'll do something, we'll think up something in the

future."

Well, that is absolutely the antithesis of what we should be

doing here. It is the absolute opposite of the type of

legislation which should be brought in.

By comparison, the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King)

legislation gives details, spells out duties, it is an

instructive type of legislation. We all have comments on it in

the Legislature and we will propose amendments to it where we

think amendments are necessary. But contrast that legislation

to deal with a major problem in the province with this. It is a

completely different approach. You'll forgive me for saying

that the approach of the Minister of Labour is infinitely

preferable. It is an approach which is in keeping with our

democratic traditions, while this authoritarian bill on farm

income is quite the reverse of what we should be doing.

[ Page 379 ]

Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion at length about farm

income, about the need to help the farmers. Yet there is

nothing here which helps the farmer specifically. We all know

that the Minister of Agriculture, or any other Minister, can

bring in a bill to help the farmer at any future time if he can

think up something that he wants to bring in. We're passing

this legislation because they haven't thought up what they want

to bring in. They don't know what they want to bring in and

they want to give the cover of doing something at a time when

they know full well that all Members of this House are

concerned about the problem.

It makes, in my view, the farmer of British Columbia, the

person in the agricultural industry, entirely dependent upon

the Crown and upon regulations. It makes him, as I mentioned

earlier, essentially a serf in terms of his independence, his

ability to operate as an independent producer. A better term

might be, I guess, that it might make him a civil servant,

because he doesn't get bargaining legislation or anything of

that nature. He is much less than a civil servant of the

government. He certainly is not the independent producer that

he has been in the past.

The farming community has looked at this legislation and

they are baffled by it, too. They have said that they think it

is a step in the right direction and they think it's a step

that expresses government concern over farm income. I agree.

They are probably right there. But in terms of what it does for

them and in terms of what it does to the whole concept of the

legislation that we have in this province, I don't think they

fully recognize the dangers that they are facing. If this

legislation is passed, and if we continue with this trend of

legislation, we are going to arrive at a situation where this

Legislature, as such, is going to have no control whatsoever,

except when we question regulations during the estimates

debate. And this, the Law Reform Commission has pointed out, is

a thoroughly inadequate way of checking on regulations.

They'll have no control, no ability to use their elected

representative, who may be Social Credit, NDP, Liberal,

Conservative, what-have-you. They will have no ability to do

that because, of course, there is no legislation that you can

get at. It is entirely in regulations and the regulations are

entirely drawn up by the cabinet, in particular the Minister

and his civil servants.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation follows legislation which was

bad — Bill 42. I imagine it was felt necessary to bring

something forward at this time because of the promise to help

the farming community out of the difficulties presented by Bill

Bill 42 was bad, but at least in Bill 42 we, in this Legislature, of all parties,

including the government, were able to recognize the problems in that bill,

the areas which were perhaps questionable and the government put in amendments.

We put in amendments and the government — and I give them credit for this —

was good enough to accept some of the Liberal amendments. I think specifically

of the one my Hon. friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

But having learned that lesson, that somehow or another, if

you try and put things down in black and white and it turns out

that it's the wrong thing to do, the public and other Members

of the Legislature will be critical, this government has

adopted entirely the opposite tack. They said, "If we get our

fingers burned when we try and put it down in black and white,

we certainly won't put it down in black and white at all. We

will do it by regulation and we will fiddle around with that in

the future and no one will know." And that's the approach they

have adopted.

Whether I approve of assisting farmers and stabilizing farm

income, or whether I don't — I do and I would like to see good

legislation here — is irrelevant to the central principle of

this type of legislation, which is authoritarian handing of

powers by the people's representatives to a Minister who will

then act in a thoroughly unchecked and uncheckable way. There's

no way we can do it. And for the third time I refer you to the

Law Reform Commission.

We started off with this government where they gave us

legislation which was bad — the Bill 42 legislation. We now

have legislation which is substantially worse. We in this party

cannot accept a bill which would make the independent

producers, the farm community of British Columbia, entirely

dependent for their income upon a Minister and upon his

regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

there has been a considerable amount of debate on Bill 9 and

its principle, and I want to make the position of the official

opposition very clear.

We recognize, in this party, the need for farm assistance.

How this became so evident within a year is rather surprising,

the action that happens out in the farming areas. The farmers

are only learning of the full impact of Bill 42 and that was a

criteria for the necessity of bringing in this form of

legislation.

Now, the former government was criticized for not bringing

in measures to help farmers. I have to disagree with that

because, when the Social Credit became government in 1952, we

had a terrible situation in relation to the milk industry. It

had to have a royal commission and a completely new Act

redrafted. So I suppose you could blame the former government

before Social Credit for their shortcomings.

[ Page 380 ]

We know the agricultural industry is a changing industry and

one must keep pace with the situation as it goes along under

normal conditions. But when a situation is developed by the

government by way of legislation which is presently on the

books, then you're naturally going to get spin-offs. The

spin-off we have today is the need for some form of assurance

to the farming industry.

This bill, as I see the bill — and I've had a slight degree

of experience in farming — is not a means by way of the

government assisting the farmer; it is a form of mechanics in

which the farmer finds that he must help himself by way of his

premiums, by way of the efficient farmer subsidizing the farmer

who is non-efficient. You have a mediocre farmer; he may be in

this year and he may be out next year as far as profit is

concerned, so you've actually got about two-thirds of the

farmers who are going to be dependent on one-third.

It's not unlike the automobile insurance that was brought in

by the government in early spring, where we have no concept of

what the premiums are going to be. I sympathize with the

Minister in this respect: I don't think anybody can tell you

what the premium is going to be on raspberries or what it's

going to be on grain or what it's going to be on apples. It's

going to take a long, long study to really come up with, let us

say, an average. You can't take the low year, you can't take

the high year, you've got to come up with a guideline. It's

going to take a terrifically long time.

Farmers can't wait that long; they need this now; they need

it in this crop year because they have found themselves in a

depreciated position as far as their landholdings are

concerned. I'm for conservation of farmland; there's no

question about that.

Although the bill says nothing as far as detail is

concerned, we're very much in support of the principle and we

are quite prepared to make suggestions, as the Minister has

invited, as to how the mechanics should be set up. Certainly

we're not in favour of the mechanics as set out in this bill

because they are too vague, as the Minister has said.

Furthermore, there's no detail, there's no revelation of

what this is going to cost the farmer. It may be completely out

of reach as far as farming is concerned. And today, when the

farmers expected a bright light — almost a second coming of the

Messiah — from the present government, they're feeling their

way around in the dark, trying to find the candle so they can

light it themselves. That's just what this legislation is; the

farmer is going to have to light his own way.

It's going to be something on the statute books which gives extremely wide

powers. It actually gives the power to the government to set up a Crown corporation

to operate agriculture; that's what it does if you want to take it to the Nth

degree. I say that this is not right. We live in a free enterprise and a democratic

province and I hope it will stay that way.

I'm completely in sympathy with legislation that will be of

assistance to the farming fraternity, and the sooner it can

come into being, the better. But the content of this bill has

little or nothing in it, and we are prepared to support the

title or the principle…(laughter)…of having an

assistance programme available to the farming legislation.

I know I got some guffaws from down here on my left. I don't

know what the laughing matter is, but as far as agriculture is

concerned, this official opposition doesn't find anything to

laugh at as far as the farmer is concerned. We want to be

helpful to the government in light of the fact that they can't

be helpful to themselves in bringing forth proper legislation

which will be of assistance to that industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's a bit difficult to deal with the

debate around this bill; the nature of the debate did nothing

to discuss the principles of the bill. At least we welcome the

support from the leader of the official opposition who says

that he does support the title, so that's something to be said

for the official opposition.

Earlier in his remarks he told us about the trouble the milk

industry was in when Social Credit took office in 1952. I

assume that was an example of what the government did for the

farmers. He didn't recall anything that they did for the

farmers since 1952.

I do recall something they did to the milk industry after

1952 and that was one of the reasons we brought in the

amendment to the Milk Industry Act a few days ago. That was

when they gave permission for another dairy to be established

in the province which certainly created a lot of problems for a

lot of dairy farmers. I just wish there was some way we could

turn the clock back today. There may be, but we're not dealing

with that today.

I'm going to try to pick out some of the comments made by

some of the Members and deal briefly with them.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) asked

about a document that I received from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture. The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) was asking about the same document. I did send out

for this and it reached my hands just as the Member was rising

to his feet to speak, so it was a bit late.

It's a very brief statement as far as stabilization of agricultural income

is concerned. It's not one that I'm prepared to leave in the House because it

has a lot of my own notes in it, but I'm sure it will be quite easy to get a

copy of this document for anyone in the

[ Page 381 ]

House who wants one. Just simply identify yourself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He promised to make it available.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I did? I'll make it available then, Give

me a few extra copies, Dick, I'll make it available. Would you

like me to read it? I could very easily; it's short — a page

and a half. No? That's fine. I would prefer not to; I don't

want to keep the House here reading a document.

There is one point in it that was raised by some of the

Members opposite. The most recent speaker in this debate raised

the question of us involving producers in this — the producers

are going to have to do it themselves — and others were

critical of the fact that producers were going to have to

contribute. In this short statement on stabilization of

agricultural income, one of the paragraphs starts out,

"Producers would contribute a percentage of their income when

prices surpass the negotiated minimums and the government would

match these contributions."

Mr. Speaker, a very general statement, the only sort of

statement that can deal with a topic such as the one we're

discussing today. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture recognized

that; many Members in the House recognized that it would have

to be a general statement, that the legislation, in the words

of the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), would have

to be flexible to allow for the many different situations that

exist in the Province of British Columbia and the many

different commodity groups that we have to consider.

The fact was mentioned by one of the Members opposite — I'm

not sure which one — that in some cases, not only is a person

producing one commodity, he may be producing several

commodities. I may come across that in my notes.

As for the cost, this is something admittedly that we don't

know at this time. We do know from the calculations I quoted

yesterday that if we use the basis that was used as a cost of

production for the Okanagan Valley — and I quoted a figure of 6

cents for apples — and if we maintain the price at that minimum

figure, the cost would be something like 0.8 of one cent per

pound for apples. This means that roughly $176,000 in premiums

from the apple producers and a like amount from the provincial

government would cover the cost of maintaining that minimum

income.

I'm not saying that that minimum figure is enough, but I'm

saying that if those are the figures you're going to use, then

that would be area of the cost.

The fruit industry has a gross contribution to the economy in the Province

of British Columbia of $50 million, as was listed in the Hudson report. The

total agricultural industry has a volume of something like $1 billion, which

is 20 times the fruit industry. I'm not suggesting for one moment that fruit

is an average situation; I think it's much lower than average. But for the sake

of having something in the way of a ballpark figure (What is the House discussing

today?), let's say that fruit is an average industry and let's say that the

cost in the fruit industry of the premium to the government would be $200,000.

Multiply that by 20 and you get an annual cost of $4 million, little enough

to support the agricultural industry in the province. But it would be meaningless

to put such a figure in this legislation at this time.

I tried to indicate in the speech that I made on this bill

and in answering questions outside of the House that we're

going to be discussing this with representatives of the

farmers' organizations commodity group by commodity group. Only

after we have arrived at those plans in consultation with those

groups will we have any idea at all as to what the volume

protection will be or what the figures will be in the various

commodity groups.

So for the meantime, again I say, in the words of the Hon.

Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)…. . and I guess I

can't really give Ned credit for bringing the word up even

before that; but he suggested also that perhaps the proper word

would be "flexible", rather than the one that I used several

times in my remarks yesterday, and I forget what that word was

right now.

The question as to who would negotiate: I don't know why

that question was asked by the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr.

Phillips). Who would negotiate? I thought I indicated quite

clearly in my remarks that we would be going to the

representatives of the commodity groups, not to individuals in

that commodity group. But again, since we've been talking so

much about fruit and you've listened to so much about fruit

when you were on the standing committee, we would go to the

organization representing the fruit growers. In the case of the

fruit growers, it is the B.C. Fruit Growers Association — we

would ask them to sit down and negotiate with us.

In the case of the grape growers, the cost of production was

arrived at with the representative of the grape growers

organization. They have a marketing board and that marketing

board worked on cost of production figures with the staff of

our department and with other people. They came up with a cost

that they felt was reasonable, a cost that they were able to

get from the wineries last year, and again this year at a

higher level. So it is possible under certain circumstances to

arrive at these costs of production.

We could put consultation in the bill; we could spell it

out. Supposing we left it in a way — and this is one of the

remarks that I think I put down as you were speaking — whereby

it could be more specific than it has been; and supposing, in

making it specific,

[ Page 382 ]

we found out that a situation arose that we couldn't deal

with because the legislation was specific. Remember, we're

pioneering. So then you would say, "Well, come in in the next

session and amend it."

In the meantime we would be saying to the farmers, "Hang on;

wait for two, three, four, six months."

We're not ready to wait. We promised the farmers in the

province in the spring of this year that we would be dealing

with legislation this fall that would help the farmers. We want

the House to approve in this session — not next session, not

the session after — plans that are going to be introduced and

amended, and amended again to suit the various particular

circumstances of any particular commodity group.

We want flexible legislation that can be accommodated to

meet the needs of any group, and not only the needs of any

group of farmers, but also to meet the very peculiar situation

that we have in Ottawa.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was talking

about this and used the words that "my heart warmed." Mr.

Speaker, I have the same problem that some of them have in that

I don't have Hansard for today or yesterday, but I can't

imagine that I would use those words; that's not the kind of

words that I use, certainly not in that context anyway. So I'm

not sure what I did say, but I didn't say…"heart soared"

were the words you used.

No, my heart didn't soar. Certainly I was encouraged by the

remarks of the federal Minister of Agriculture. But when I

think that he may not be Minister of Agriculture very long;

when I think that that government may not be in office very

long…and who can tell? I can't tell. I can listen, but I

can't tell. I have no influence in that area any more than, I

think, you have. You know, that government will last just as

long as the Liberal Premier is prepared to do something for the

people of Canada. There are times when it appears that he is

not prepared to do much more for the people of Canada.

If at any time he shows that he's not prepared to do

something for the people of Canada, then he's going to be out

of office, and with that we lose the federal minister. All we

have is the federal Minister's indications as to what he wants

to do and what he is going to put to his cabinet

colleagues.

Now my heart wouldn't soar at that type of encouragement.

But certainly I was encouraged that at last we do have a

federal Minister who does want to do something, and who was

willing to sit down with the provincial Ministers of

Agriculture and tell us what he wanted to do and to ask us to

indicate our support at that meeting, when there were many

civil servants around who would go back and tell their

respective Ministers what the provincial Ministers wanted — so

that it wouldn't be just his word. So I was encouraged.

MRS. JORDAN: Was it a B.C. production cost or a national

production cost?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have that question here too. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I know it's difficult to listen and to make notes,

because I ran into the same difficulty. But I thought I did

make it quite plain, not once but several times over, that the

federal Minister was considering two different pieces of

legislation, a new one and an old one, including a provision

for federal-provincial participation on the basis that he would

deal with provinces individually.

I mention the hog plan where I said that he recognized the

difficulty of trying to deal with something like that where it

really should be at least a region, if not the whole country.

But even in spite of that he was prepared to sit down province

by province and negotiate agreements peculiar to the needs and

the desires — and not just that, Mr. Speaker — according also

to the willingness of that particular provincial government to

act.

The Member opposite spoke about the willingness of the

previous government and the problems it had in negotiating with

Ottawa. I still hear from people in Ottawa that they just can't

get over the idea that at long last there is a government in

office in the Province of British Columbia that is prepared to

sit down and talk with them about negotiating things where the

provincial government will participate.

MR. CHABOT: Talk to the Minister of Industrial Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. STUPICH: The attitude previously has been that the

provincial government was prepared to go along with anything if

Ottawa would pay the whole shot and if the provincial

government of B.C. would get all the credit. That was the only

way they were prepared to talk to Ottawa about helping farmers

in the Province of British Columbia.

We're prepared to negotiate with them. We're prepared to

accept their money. We're prepared to accept federal money for

farm income maintenance plans, farm income assurance plans, in

the Province of British Columbia. We're prepared to give them

all the credit they want.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you bring in crop insurance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, we didn't bring in crop insurance, Mr.

Speaker; the previous government brought in crop insurance, and

brought it in in a way that was not acceptable to the farmers

in British Columbia. He knows from his own riding how many

farmers were in crop insurance up in the South Peace River

area. And I'm sure he knows, Mr. Speaker, that participation in

that plan has at least quadrupled since this administration

took office because it is a

[ Page 383 ]

much better deal now and because we have gone out to

persuade the farmers in that area that this is something they

should be taking advantage of because it is a good plan for

them.

Previously the attitude was, "Well, let's not encourage them

too much because if they do come in we may have to pay out some

claims and it'll cost the government money." But now we're

going out and persuading them to join the crop insurance plan

because it will help them.

One criticism did come from the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) and has come from many of the Members in the

opposition generally — and really this is the criticism of the

bill in their minds. They're worried; they're concerned.

They're concerned that the bill is going to do too much for the

farmers in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, not

enough has been done.

At long last, legislation is before the Members in this

House that will enable the government to sit down and negotiate

with farmers to help farmers. And the concern, the worry, the

criticism is, "You might do too much; you might spend too much

money to help the farmers." The farmers have been helping the

consumers too long. It is time the consumers and the general

community decided that the farmers too need some help in this

Province of British Columbia. We have a government that's

prepared to do it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's no question, Mr. Speaker, of

premiums in the bill. There are situations where premiums might

not be the right route to go. These are situations where

instead of individual farmers paying a premium it might be that

the association of producers would levy some kind of a charge

that would not be considered a premium. By putting the word

"premium" in the legislation, we might find it difficult to

accommodate the needs of that particular commodity group.

There are all kinds of situations where we might find that

the lawyers would try to word this. I recall the remarks of the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)…no, I'm

sorry, the Second Member (Mr. Gardom). The First Member is

raising his eyebrows when I mention the word "lawyers." The

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was concerned about all

the work that these two civil servants are having to do all by

themselves.

Now to try to develop legislation that would accommodate every possible situation

with the various commodity groups that we have in this province, with the various

combinations of commodity groups that we have in this province, would be asking

too much, even if we had four instead of two lawyers drafting all the legislation

that has been drafted in this province for the last 20 years.

Interjections.