1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2207 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Inquiry into B.C. construction industry. Hon. Mr. King —

Routine proceedings

Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Radford.

Introduction and first reading — 2207

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates On vote 7. Hon. Mr.

Stupich — 2208

On vote 8. Mrs. Jordan — 2227

On vote 9. Mr. Wallace — 2229

Point of order

Interpretation of standing order 45(3). Mr. D.A. Anderson —

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the

House that yesterday an order-in-council was passed

commissioning an inquiry into the construction industry in

British Columbia, appointing James Kinnaird as the special

inquiry officer under the terms of

section 123 of the Labour

Code of British Columbia, having the following terms of

reference:

(

a) to assist in the development of improved bargaining structures in the

construction industry and (

b) to determine the advisability of legislative

reform of accreditation of the employers in the construction industry;

to examine into the problems of the organization of employees in the construction

industry;

to consider the effect of national agreements on collective bargaining

in the Province of British Columbia, and report and make recommendations to

the Minister of Labour;

to report on developments and structure of collective bargaining procedures

in the construction industry to the Minister of Labour by no later than October

15, 1975, as outlined in items 1, 2 and 3;

to consider the problems of inter-union jurisdictional disputes;

to consider the necessity of measures aimed at ensuring the qualification

of construction trade employees;

to consider whether employers in the construction industry should be required

to be licensed as to their competence to engage in the construction activities

of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that many of these

problems contained in the terms of reference have bedevilled

the construction industry and created instability in that

industry for many, many years past. It's my view that Jim

Kinnaird, who was formerly president of the Yukon Building

Trades Council and formerly Associate Deputy Minister of

Labour, has an intimate knowledge of all the unique problems in

the construction industry and, more importantly, has the

confidence not only of the trade union movement but of the

industry as well. So I look forward to some very positive

results flowing from this inquiry. We'll eventually report to

the House again.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we

welcome the statement by the Minister. We welcome his

announcement this morning and hope that from it will come some

stability in the construction industry. We, too, realize the

problems the province has had in the past and the necessity

that stability, particularly at this time, be brought about. I

hope that the inquiry will have the desired result, and I

welcome this action.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the

Minister's statement. We believe that the terms of reference,

as outlined by him, are good. We believe the choice of

personnel involved is also very good, and we congratulate him

for it.

It's a curious thing that just this morning we heard that

the Quebec National Assembly has two bills before it now to put

unions in the construction industry in trusteeship and, of

course, look into other aspects of the construction industry

there. We've had demonstrations on the lawn, and I trust that

the action of the Minister and his commissioner and the report

by October 15, 1975, will prevent in British Columbia some of

the problems that are facing other provinces of this

country.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We add our full support to the

Minister's efforts.

HON. MR. KING: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it would

be unfortunate if anyone viewed this announcement as having any

relevance or relationship whatsoever with activities in Quebec.

We have our own unique problems, and they are quite different

and separate from any that may have been experienced in eastern

Canada. This is strictly a provincial initiative.

Introduction of bills

FISHERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Radford, Bill 70, Fisheries

Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 7: general and financial services, $48,388,601 — continued.

[ Page

2208 ]

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

should have asked for leave earlier, but I do have the 1974 report of

Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund

that is available for distribution and, with leave of the

t House, I ask that distribution be made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You should table it when the

committee rises. However, it can be circulated, I would

think.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Minister, we

appreciate the tabling of this report. It would have been

helpful, I must say, if it had been tabled in time for Members

to study it before we came to this particular vote. I'm sure

that Members now will hope that there will be no rush through

this vote in order that they can study your report and comment

on it in due course without being ruled out of order.

I'd like, Mr. Minister, to touch on one or two other points

at this stage. Under agricultural and rural development you

mentioned that this included general ARDA programmes,

irrigation programmes and community pasture programmes, and I

wonder if the Minister has given any consideration there for

more assistance in the rural areas in the way of rural

electrification.

When you liken this programme and the efforts that are being

made under agricultural and rural development and relate that

to the farm income assurance programme, you see that there has

been a sad lack of concentration in the area of rural

electrification by this government.

We wonder why you, as Minister of Agriculture, are not more forceful

in your presentation to get more money for this programme this year.

Mr. Chairman, no doubt the Minister is aware that the land freeze, Bill

42, has made it virtually impossible to increase the population density

in many of these more remote areas, and that the B.C. Hydro formula for

rural electrification is based, in part, on population density. I

believe that I am correct in suggesting that it used to be on the basis

of one customer every three miles, and it is even impossible to get

this in many areas now because of the land freeze.

This means that those producers who are in the remote areas of the province

are in a position where it is virtually impossible, under the present policies

of the government, to even consider the opportunity of rural electrification

and getting power to their operations, This means that they are in a position

of having to compete either under income assurance or against income assurance

at a very strong disadvantage. If they are in the income assurance programme,

which is based on modular units, as the Minister is aware, then quite obviously

they are going o fall below the norm in their production, just in the production

of hay and alfalfa, for example. If they don't have power, it is unlikely that

they will be able to go into any type of extensive irrigation. Therefore hey

can only count on one major crop a year — maybe two at the most — and certainly

their second crop would be of a very questionable quality.

Now if they are producing in order to feed their cattle and

they are on the income assurance programme, this is going to

affect their place, as I understand it, in their role in the

income assurance programme. They are at a disadvantage.

Obviously they can't be as efficient and productive on an acre

basis or a head basis as an operator who has minimum

transportation problems and no power problem. If the producer

is not in the income assurance programme, then he just faces

further major costs of production. There is, I understand, a

cattle producer who is a lady in the Peace River who suffers

from this problem of added transportation and labour costs, and

then the problem of trying to provide power. They also face the

fact that these producers who would be under the income

assurance programme are probably more able to purchase

necessary commodities with the assurance that they can pay for

them and perhaps will not bargain quite as stringently as they

might have. Therefore the producer who is not under the income

assurance programme doesn't have the collective weight of the

whole farming community in bargaining for the best price on

their basic needs, That sets them in a position of

disadvantage.

I would like to ask the Minister why he was not successful

in achieving more money for rural electrification, assuming,

indeed, that he made a strong presentation to cabinet. What

does he intend to do about it? Will he undertake, by giving a

commitment to this House, to see that next year's budget has a

good deal more money for rural electrification and that it has

a new formula which will acknowledge that the majority of

people in this province do now have power and those who don't

are in the most remote areas and simply are not ever going to be

able to qualify under the present formula?

I would like to again speak in terms of the income assurance

programme. I asked the Minister some questions last night which

he failed to answer. I am very interested to know his

budgeting, which he has not really made available. If one looks

at the $27 million set aside for income assurance this year and

then tallies up the anticipated costs that the Minister is

presumably entering into with the negotiations underway, one

must recognize that a good deal of the money that the Minister

is talking about now will not be shown on the books in terms of

a cost to the Crown until 1976 and 1977. I would like the

Minister to break down for the House, if he would, what his

[ Page

2209 ]

anticipated costs are in terms of catch-up for any funds

that are deficient for past years, 1973 and 1974, and which

programmes he anticipates will be paid for this year out of the

$27 million. When does the government intend to make those

indemnity funds their contribution to the indemnity? Will it be

in the 1975 fiscal year, or even possibly moving over to

1977?

I wonder if the Minister has any plans in mind in terms of

the government bargaining committee for Monday when they are

meeting with the cattle producers' association bargaining

committee. The Minister spoke with confidence last night, and I

wonder if he would give a commitment to this House. He has had

ample time. It's Friday today and quite obviously the position

of the government bargaining committee is very clear. They are

going in Monday morning. The Minister is fully aware of what

the cattle producers are willing to settle for. Can he

guarantee this House that these negotiations will reach a

conclusion on Monday and that the cattle producers' association

negotiating committee will be able to go to the annual

convention of their association with a positive package?

In light of this, will the government's negotiating

committee have the authority on Monday to, so to speak, close

the deal? There has been a lot of concern in these negotiations

that either the Minister is not sensitive to what some of the

problems are or he has closed his eyes to what these problems

are. I would suggest that the Member for Chilliwack's (Mr.

Schroeder'

s) comments regarding the dairymen's association and

the dairy industry in the Fraser Valley and the Minister's

response to that in the debate last night is very indicative of

this. Mr. Minister, your negotiating committee has not been as

informed as it should or could have been, and this is not their

fault. I think, as administrator, you must assume this

responsibility. The Minister has never made clear who has the

authority in these negotiations.

Would the Minister answer these questions specifically? Does

the government negotiating committee have the authority to come

to a conclusion at the bargaining table? Have they had it in

the past? If not, who is making the final decision? Is it the

Minister himself? Does each negotiating package have to go to

Treasury or does the Minister have a special committee behind

the scenes that advises him and the government negotiating

committee?

The industry itself, the dairy producers in particular, are very concerned

about the changes in ground rules that are taking place. The Minister shucked

this off very lightly last night as it if was nothing. I say either he's insensitive

to what's going on or he's trying to brush it under the table. Mr. Minister,

you can be accused of using subtle manipulations and fear tactics in these negotiations

and, in essence, getting the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to do a lot of the

dirty work for the department and for yourself. Whether this is intentional

or not, this is causing antagonism between the commodity groups and the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture.

The commodity groups entered into these agreements in good

faith, secure, they thought, in the knowledge that the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture was fully representing their

interests. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture entered into

these negotiations in good faith, fully confident that they

were representing the producers' interests. But if the Minister

persists in manipulating these negotiations by not allowing his

negotiating committee the authority they need and the backup

they need to negotiate in a responsible and knowledgeable

manner, then he's guilty of letting fall on the shoulders of

the Commodities' overall representation the job of taking the

blame for the inefficiencies and the weaknesses in the

Minister's administration.

We don't think this is right. We believe it's essential that

the commodity groups have their right to representation by

their own people and by the umbrella organization they belong

to. And that organization's responsibility is to the producers

as a whole. It shouldn't be in a position where the Minister is

trying to use it as a tool for his own political purposes, his

own inabilities or his own weaknesses.

I think if the Minister can give this House assurance of the

authority of his negotiating committee for Monday, this would

help in some way alleviate the concerns about what really is in

the package for cattlemen, what the government really does

intend to do in light of their continual switches in the

past.

These switches are most unusual at the negotiating table —

where the government would come in with one programme based on

its own rules and its own formula, negotiations would carry on

for a number of meetings and then all of a sudden the

government negotiating committee would come back with a much

lower proposal. This is a complete reversal of the regular

negotiating procedure. This has caused considerable concern

among the producers and has put the various negotiating

committees in a most embarrassing light. Frankly, they just

wonder if they can have confidence in this Minister's word.

Mr. Minister, this is why the debate yesterday was so

essential. You're handling a great deal of the public's money

in income assurance. The effectiveness of this programme is

going to affect not only the Treasury but also very drastically

affect the lives of many producers in this province.

It's going to have a far-reaching effect in the communities.

It's essential that they have confidence

[ Page 2210 ]

in the Minister as to his truthfulness, his administrative

ability and his word. Because of the fluctuations in the

negotiating approaches, because of the fact that the

negotiating committee for the government does not appear to

have had any real authority, has not had the proper backup that

it should have, this has added one more log on the woodpile of

concern for the Minister's credibility that's been building in

the province.

I feel, as I mentioned before, that if the Minister can

satisfy some of these questions this morning and be more open

in his projected costs, where the money is coming from, how

he's budgeting and who has the authority, this would go a long

way toward alleviating these concerns.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity

to say a few more words about the agricultural income assurance

programme, but if I could just comment first on rural

electrification. There was discussion of this under vote 62 and

I think it's more appropriate that any further discussion

should be under that vote another year. I'll just say this....

MRS. JORDAN: Another year is right! We want to discuss it

this year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, you had your opportunity when vote

62 was up for discussion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Exactly! You did take your opportunity

then; it was discussed at that time. I didn't take

part in the

discussion at the time, but I will now comment briefly on this

whole business of rural electrification.

I think a community has to sometimes consider just how far

it is prepared to go in providing community services to people

who elect, because they prefer, to move away from communities.

I'm saying we have to strike some kind of a balance in deciding

just how much the taxpayers are going to contribute to

individuals, or even a group of individuals, who choose to move

away from communities.

We have a balance now. I'm not saying it's the proper

balance; I'm not saying it isn't a balance that should be

considered and reconsidered, and that there might be some

wisdom in moving further in this rural electrification

programme, as an example. But I am suggesting that some sort of

balance has to be struck and that the balance could change from

time to time.

I am also saying that the appropriate place to discuss it would be under vote

62. I am saying also that it does not come under the ARDA programme, which is

a joint federal-provincial programme. Rural electrification is not one of the

items included there. Can I guarantee that the discussions on Monday will reach

a conclusion? No, I can't guarantee that. I am optimistic, as I said last night

in the discussion. I don't know whether they are going to reach a satisfactory

conclusion. If I knew what was going to happen Monday, we wouldn't need Monday.

If I knew what was going to happen Monday, then obviously we have already done

everything that has to be done. They are going to meet on Monday. They will

be discussing and they will be negotiating.

Who has the authority? Ultimately, cabinet has the authority

because the plan will be described by regulations that will be

drafted and will be approved by

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Within the limits that are in

this vote, cabinet has given me the authority to negotiate

income assurance plans for producer groups. I have that

authority, although I will have to go back to cabinet. I have a

responsibility to stay within the $27 million that is being

asked for in this vote.

Does the negotiating committee have that authority? No, I

haven't passed or delegated that authority to anyone. I have

delegated certain responsibilities to the negotiating

committee. I have given ballpark figures that were announced

last night. But when the staff committee, my committee, has met

with the cattlemen's committee and when they have brought their

positions closer together, they can then come to me and find

out whether or not this is a position that I am prepared to

recommend to cabinet. At that point, we will know whether or

not the negotiations have reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Cabinet has the ultimate authority; cabinet has delegated a

certain responsibility to me. I, in turn, have asked the

negotiating committee to try and bring the two parties close

enough together so we can reach agreement. Whether it will be

Monday, I just can't say at this point.

The Member has taken this opportunity to really question the

whole programme of income assurance. The only question that I

ever hear coming from farmers, in spite of the concerns that

she has voiced, apparently speaking on behalf of farmers, is

that they are worried there may be a change in administration

and they may lose the whole income assurance programme. Never

have I seen anywhere and never have any of them seen anywhere

anything in print guaranteeing that any change in

administration would mean a continuation of something that is

brand new. B.C. is the first province to get involved in this

kind of a programme. It is spreading. There is an

article here

from Country Life , March, 1975: "Canadian Federation of

Agriculture adopts farm income protection policy based on B.C.

concepts." It is moving across the country.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan, I believe, asked

yesterday evening whether the B.C. programme

[ Page 2211 ]

was dependent upon federal support. Not in this fiscal

period. I am not counting on getting federal support. We will

operate within the budget — that is, the figures that are being

offered to you today — in this current fiscal period. We are

still hoping that Ottawa will contribute meaningfully to a farm

income assurance programme. We are negotiating with them; we

are urging them. But at the moment we are not counting on it.

What we will be able to do if Ottawa does meaningfully

participate in the programme is something that we have to leave

open because we don't know when or if that is going to

happen.

The programme for this year, the $27 million for the current

fiscal year, will cover the four commodity groups — five now;

another one was announced today — where we have reached

agreement, as well as others that are being negotiated.

Particularly the cattlemen's plan, the broiler hatching-egg

producers and the commercial egg producers will all be covered

within the $27 million figure, and hopefully one or two more.

But we will have to wait until we get these operating and then

discuss the possibility of bringing others in.

As I said, I haven't heard the concerns from the farmers

that the Member opposite seems to have heard. I have all kinds

of letters from producers welcoming the plan and telling me how

well it is working. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture recently

started publication of a newsletter that I understand is going

out to all of their members affiliated with the B.C.

federation. In the recent issue, May 5, 1975, as recently as

that, they don't seem to have the concerns that are voiced by

the Member opposite. If I may quote from this newsletter, Mr.

Chairman, under the heading "Farm Income Assurance Outside

B.C.:"

"All credit to Dave Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, for

the breadth of vision which allowed the government to introduce

such a realistic programme which, in the words of our then

president, Charlie Bernhardt, in 1973: 'held a new hope for a

better economic future for the province's farmers.'

"The concept of income assurance is beginning to catch on.

Quebec is drafting legislation similar to B.C.'s and Ontario,

too, expects to follow suit. The fact of the matter is that

B.C. is stimulating keen interest from eastern Canada."

The whole page goes on to talk about this programme.

The farmers in the province welcome it. The farmers in the province, I think,

would like some assurance from all of the opposition parties that, whatever

happens after the next election, whenever that might be, and if some disaster

were to overtake the Province of B.C. and there was some change in administration,

there would be at least a continuation of the farm income assurance programme.

I am waiting to hear that; the farmers of British Columbia are waiting to hear

it. They are not complaining to me about the inadequacies of the programme.

They are welcoming the programme and they are continuing to come in and ask

for negotiations to include more and more commodity groups. I think there is

no better way of showing their support for what we have done so far other than

to ask us to include this kind of protection for more and more individuals,

more and more groups.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's

comments. As usual he tried to turn it into a great political

wheel-and-deal about what we're going to do when we're

government, and he says the producers....

HON. MR. STUPICH: If, not when. If.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, you've been thrown out before. I

suggest you're going to be thrown out again.

But what the Minister missed is one of the paramount

questions in the producers' minds in British Columbia today:

what is your government going to do if by chance it should be

re-elected? It is the inconsistency of the Minister's

statement, it is the inconsistency of the authority that he's

given his negotiating committee, and it's the inconsistency of

the negotiations themselves which has brought considerable

concern to the producers' minds.

One inconsistency that I'll point out to you is that the

Minister stated initially that, on questioning from the

opposition, no way would income assurance be used as a vehicle

for controlling the producers in this province. Yet initially

the position was put to the interior vegetable producers that

in order to qualify for income assurance they must join up with

the coast vegetable producers. If it hadn't been for Rusty

Freeze, who has long supported your party, Mr. Chairman,

getting up on his high horse and everybody backing him, the

Minister would have proceeded. But he is noted for testing the

political wind before he even attempts to make a decision and

we all know that he withdrew that position at that time because

of the weakness of his own position.

That's one example, Mr. Chairman, of their concern: this

Minister said there would be no manipulation through income

assurance, when in fact there have been attempts. Is it not

true — and perhaps the Minister would answer this — that in

order to get agreement with the egg producers in this province,

one of the conditions is that the Egg Marketing Board must stay

within CEMA?

Mr. Minister, your government is noted for using a carrot to

attract people in, build their hopes, then slap them to the

ground and force them into a

[ Page 2212 ]

position of desperation so that any little offering the

government makes them grateful. We saw this sort of thing done

with the independent insurance agents — backing them to the

wall, taking away their livelihood, and then making them

grateful for any sort of a contract ICBC or the government

wished to make.

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

confine her remarks to this vote, please.

MRS. JORDAN: In the actual negotiations themselves, a

constant shifting...and let's use the cattlemen's

negotiations because these have gone on for months. Indeed,

there are complexities and everyone appreciates this, but the

major complexity, which is still confusing the cattlemen today,

is why the government negotiating committee was forced by the

Minister to change its position so radically on, I believe,

Friday, April 11, when the head of the government negotiating

committee, Mr. C. Peterson, made it very clear that: the ground

rules of the whole negotiations were to be changed; the

original commitment made by the government was not to be met;

the cattlemen were not to have the amount of money, the $7

million that was estimated by the government negotiating team

and the Minister himself that would be needed; and the

cattlemen's programme would not stand in an equitable position

with the other income assurance programmes. This is after

nearly nine months of negotiation. The Minister had his team

completely shift their position.

The cattlemen went away absolutely discouraged and confused.

They understand money problems. They understand negotiating

problems, But what they don't understand is a negotiating

committee that really doesn't know where it stands, not through

its own fault but through the fact that the Minister seems

unable to meet commitments that he makes from time to time in

various parts of the province and that often they're

conflicting.

Then what confused them, Mr. Minister, is why, all of a

sudden, now all the money is available. Is it because — and

they asked this — there's an election around the corner? Is the

government attempting to use this sort of manipulating money

management and income assurance management to buy the votes of

the producers? And then what is going to happen if there is an

election and this government is re-elected? That's what's on

their minds and that's what concerns them, Mr. Minister.

You're the government, Mr. Minister. You're the Minister

who's been shifting ground. You're the Minister that they're

asking the questions of. Your responsibility is to answer — to

be forthright and frank with these people, not to play games

with them and not to question where the opposition stands.

We'll answer to the producers, but we don't have to answer

to you. I find it a sign of weakness on the part of the

Minister that rather than speaking confidently and having

policies for his own programmes, he shifts around trying to

find out what the opposition programme is.

Also at this time I would plead with the Minister once more,

in complementing the income assurance programme, to make

capital grants available to the industry rather than the loan,

particularly in areas where there have to be major capital

outlays for a realignment of that industry in order for it to

maintain its position on a competitive basis.

I cite the fruit industry as an example. In the building of

the two controlled-atmosphere storage plants, I've repeatedly

asked the Minister and challenged the Minister. I ask him

again: why not meet the federal government's one-third grant

with a cash grant from the provincial government? Why tie it in

a loan? Income assurance only barely meets their estimate of

cost of production. It is wrong, in my view, to tie in this

type of debt to the producers.

These are almost pilot projects because of the serious

concern as to what is going to happen, in this instance, in the

apple industry when the major increase in production in

Washington comes on line. Why keep saddling them consistently

with long-term debts? The interest rate is not that low; 8 per

cent is a lot of money. When this government talks about

low-interest loans, they really aren't low-interest loans.

Doesn't the Minister consider a low-interest loan in the area

of 4 per cent or 5 per cent rather than 8 per cent?

There are other realignments that have to take place if

these industries are to survive. Again I'll use the fruit

industry as an example. The Minister forced a resolution

through this House that forced the position of this House that

if they adopted his resolution for a vote on the one-desk

selling agency concept for the fruit growers, they also had to

accept the concept of the Hudson report. Mr. Minister, one of

the major recommendations in the Hudson report, which obviously

the Minister has fully endorsed, is to realign, refurbish, and

if not, rebuild and streamline the various packinghouses in the

Okanagan Valley.

Mr. Minister, as an incentive to these, I think it is not

enough that your government assists with the study and the

design costs, but also that this is considered as a pilot

project and that moneys loaned should come in the form of a

one-third matching grant with the federal government. If the

federal people put in one-third and if the provincial put in

one-third, then the producers have one-third, and it is a

long-term loan for them, but it is something that's manageable.

I would urge the Minister again to consider this policy.

Certainly, I feel that it's essential in some of these areas

for there to be capital grants. I don't think the

[ Page 2213 ]

government has to have shares; it doesn't have to have its

finger in the pies of the producers' business. There's been too

much of that now; it leaves too much room for criticism of

political appointees and political manipulation. I invite the

Minister to comment on whether he is willing to undertake the

thought of capital grants matching with the federal grants in

some of these areas.

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

North Okanagan, Mr. Chairman, I believe, did speak the truth in

one sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

rephrase his remark? It gives the imputation that the Hon.

Member was not telling the truth.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll say she was particularly truthful

when she said: "A little thing will make the farmers have to

give them very much." I think that was quite an admission from

this farm critic for the Social Credit. It shocks me that

that's the best Social Credit can do; but realizing that Social

Credit did so very little for 20 years, I shouldn't be

surprised. Certainly this Minister, this Department of

Agriculture and this government would have to do very little to

show the improvement over what happened after 20 years of

Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister speak

to the vote, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. We realize that over 17 canneries

shut down in B.C. when Del Monte bought out Aylmer brands and

Dominion brands; that was Social Credit — corporate

control.

Under this vote this Minister dared to break new ground,

dared to be different and dared to show a little courage. When

he brought in the land-freeze legislation, did that win the

government support? Yet today the farmers throughout B.C. —

even the chamber of commerce in Chilliwack — said that that's

some of the greatest legislation. It's given the farmers

security.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The land-freeze legislation is

not a part of this vote. I would ask the Hon. Minister to stick

strictly to this vote.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, this does relate to farmers being

more secure and satisfied in farming.

To move on to income assurance....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Agriculture Minister

himself?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Income assurance is innovative. The dairy farmers

throughout B.C. today, especially those who are in the areas that have taken

advantage of farm income assurance, are upgrading their equipment, upgrading

their farms and are feeling more secure than they ever did before. They see

a way that they can make a good living and retire and pass their farms on to

their sons and daughters. They know that because of farm freeze those private

real estate developers are off their backs. They are no longer chasing the farmers

off the farms.

The one spot in the whole of North America last year that

showed a great increase in dairy production was mainly the

Fraser Valley of this province. This came about as a credit to

this Minister, that he would dare to do something different and

be innovative. True, as I said at the outset, he wouldn't have

had to do very much to improve over the 20 years of do-nothing — the 20 years on the part of developers pushing the farmers

off the farms. But this Minister, through this legislation, has

given the farmers far more security then they ever had before,

and the farmers appreciate it. I am surprised that that

agriculture critic would dare to criticize it.

As far as the cattle ranchers are concerned, what is her

position? What is the Social Credit position with farm income

assurance for the cattle ranchers? I'd like them to answer some

questions. I happen to know of a veterinarian that has some of

the largest cattle ranchers in the empire, certainly in the

nation. The big cattle rancher doesn't want farm income

assurance. He says he can produce beef at 30 cents a pound.

Some of them don't want farm income assurance, because they

realize that it's going to make the small beef rancher more

viable. He will be able to stay in business and help provide

good food for the people of this province and this nation. But

the great corporate cattle ranchers would just as soon see

those little guys out and go bankrupt so they can be gobbled up

by the big guys. That's selfish, old free enterprise which that

Member across there is trying to defend.

Yet free enterprise in farming has failed, and failed

miserably. It failed under 20 years of Social Credit. We saw

farm after farm go out of business. We saw cannery after

cannery shut down in her riding, throughout the Okanagan,

throughout the Fraser Valley and throughout this province. Free

enterprise has failed the farmer miserably, and if there is one

man who will go down in history as a Minister of Agriculture,

it will be the Hon. David Stupich, Member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) asked three questions that the Hon. Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) didn't answer and I would like the

opportunity.

With respect to the egg income assurance programme: was

there a requirement that the Egg

[ Page 2214 ]

Marketing Board remain as a participating member in CEMA?

The answer is yes. As I said yesterday evening in talking about

income assurance, any income assurance plan depends upon supply

management, and the vehicle for a supply management in Canada

as a whole in the egg industry today is CEMA. So egg income

assurance, as one of the income assurance programmes, depending

upon supply management, carries with it the proviso that the

B.C. Egg Marketing Board remains as a fully participating

member in CEMA at least until the end of 1975, as they agreed

to do and as they agreed to give a year's notice, late in 1974,

in accordance with the terms of the CEMA agreement. If they

live up to that agreement, that is one of the requirements

before an egg income assurance plan will be operative to the

egg producers.

I was asked about the constant shifting in negotiations. Mr.

Chairman, that is negotiation. If either party goes in with a

firm position from which it is not prepared to move under any

circumstances, well, then there is no negotiating. Negotiation

means that two parties, in the process of discussion, are

prepared to give and take to change their position. So there

has been constant shifting. There will continue to be constant

shifting until agreement has been reached.

The Hon. Member asked about my policy with respect to

capital grants for the fruit industry. I certainly welcome her

support for everything that we have done in agriculture in the

short space of two years and nine months. The increase in the

money available for the Department of Agriculture was almost

tenfold in two and a half years, and she is suggesting now that

we should increase the Agriculture budget even further. I

welcome her support. I think it would be a good idea to have a

good deal more money to spend on agriculture in the Province of

British Columbia.

However, I am coming to the Legislature in this session

asking for a total of $60 million rather than the $5

million-odd that was spent in the fiscal period ended March,

1972. I am presenting to you how I think the $60 million should

be spent. Next year I would hope to come back to the

Legislature and ask for more money. Possibly at that time we

would have some new programmes to announce. But I feel this

manner of spending this amount of money is the best that I can

do for the agricultural industry in the province, and it is on

that basis that I am presenting these estimates to you. I just

don't understand the source of the Member's complaints.

I am not sure what farmers she has been talking to. I have

quoted from newspaper stories and I have a letter from the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture and I will read from part of it. It

is dated March 6, 1975:

"In order to keep you posted, we are happy to report that

the loss of producers at the rate of one per day during the past 10 years or

so has, we believe, come to a halt. Our latest figures show the federation membership

at 10,408, February, 1975.

Whereas just a few short months ago the figure was

as low as 9,460, October, 1974.

"Certainly a great degree of this turnaround has been due to

the new agricultural programmes now in effect."

Now this is the current thinking of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture.

"Our great concern previously had been the unwillingness of

the younger generation to get involved. Although we have no

figures to substantiate our positions, we do believe that

younger people are becoming involved, primarily because of the

more stable conditions in agriculture."

This is the word I am getting from farmers and from farmer

organizations. I just don't understand where the Member

opposite is getting all of her uneasiness.

I do want to note in passing — I think Hansard will

record it — the official opposition, when given the opportunity

to put itself on record with respect to farm income programmes,

declined to say whether it opposed them, supported them, and

what it would do should that sorry day ever some to pass when

they might again take office.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Minister's

twisting and turning. I also appreciate some of his frank

answers, which have been very slow to come in this House.

Before I comment and ask a couple more questions, I would

just comment on the Minister of Public Works' (Hon. Mr.

Hartley'

s) statements. I am sorry he is not in the House, but

it is quite obvious after listening to him why the Hon.

Member's list of office vacancies is nothing compared to his

list of cerebral vacancies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

not indulge in personalities, but rather consider the vote

before us and keep her remarks relevant to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: I would just correct the Hon. Minister. He

suggested that his ranchers can produce cattle at 30 cents a

pound. One of his major answers is on record in The Kamloops

News as of Monday, April 21, saying that producers are

getting per month.... I don't want to read the whole quote,

but he says the cost of production without allowing any for the

interest in the cattle produced stacks up to 80 cents a pound,

and the average price for calves over the past four months has

been about 30 cents a pound — that's to the producer. He goes

on to explain that, and he says on the overall he's losing

[ Page

2215 ]

approximately 50 cents a pound.

So not only is the office vacancy there, but the cerebral

vacancy is there, and I pinpoint it on the fact that the

Minister said his producers could reduce the 30 cents a pound,

and it is not true.

The Minister of Public Works did bring up an important

point, and that is the matter of passing family farms from

father to son, and the great things that the NDP government

have done. I have in other debates, and would like to now, in

view of the fact that the Minister introduced this — and I

think it does come into the income assurance programme as well,

because income assurance just won't allow for the situation

that is happening — advise the Minister that there are some

serious problems in this area, both in the gift tax area and

the estate tax area. If the Minister is going to believe some

more of his publicity and jump up and say, "Oh, you can pass

family farm to family farm," I want to make it clear I

understand that. However, I would suggest that if a farm

qualifies as a family farm it may pass to a child exempt. But

there are approximately 10 points in that qualification, and

there are very few family farms....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate

her remarks to the items in this vote, please?

MRS. JORDAN: It means, Mr. Chairman, if you relate it to

income assurance, which probably is the most logical

relationship, that it would be still extremely difficult and, I

suggest, morally wrong for a child to have to utilize the

income assurance as part of his means of purchasing his own

family farm. We believe that the family farm should be passed

in the family without gift taxes and without estate taxes.

If you look at the cost that would be involved to income

assurance, you have to be aware that there is no exemption for

a farm passing to a spouse. In other words, there is no

exemption for a farm passing from a wife to her husband, or a

husband to his wife, except for the basic $125,000 and the

value of the family home. That includes insurance and

non-community annuities to the minimum of $150,000 in total.

When one examines the accelerated value of land in this

province today, if one can sell farmland, one would realize

that in adding that to the cost of equipment and to the cost of

operating the farm, most capital investments of family farms

exceed both the formula and the allowances in the present

Estate Tax Act. Therefore what the Minister claimed in previous

debates is not a fact.

It should be known that spouses can defer duties for up to 10 years if the

farm is continued as a family farm. This again still imposes a tremendous hardship

on those farms and would reflect itself in the income assurance.

I do again say that a once-in-a-lifetime gift of $10,000 of

farm property may be made to a child, plus $2,000 each year,

and a spouse may be given $10,000 a year. This is an

unsatisfactory and really around-the-bush way of trying to

force families into expensive bookkeeping and manipulation. We

believe there should be no estate tax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member has failed to

convince the Chair that there is a relevance between estate tax

and this particular estimate. I would ask her to draw the

relevance a little more securely.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I've made my

point.

If the Minister cares to dispute my words, just in closing

on that point, I'm suggesting that this would impose a

roundabout cost on crop insurance and I would suggest that this

is straight from the director of taxation.

Again, I must go back to the Minister's comments when he

replies to the concerns regarding the income assurance and his

almost silliness in continually insisting that because we ask

questions we don't appreciate the income assurance

programme.

When he suggests that all negotiations have shifted, I

suggest he is right. But what he doesn't understand and what

the producers don't understand is why he considers it normal

for a negotiating position to be shifted down from the original

base from which they started, the base set out by that

Minister. This, in essence, brings in a whole new ball game

that is not in evidence in other forms of negotiating.

I think if the Minister could stop fiddling around with the

political angles and think about this, he would understand why

there is major concern in this area. This is nothing to do with

the good points or the bad points of income assurance. It is a

major problem in the negotiating procedure; it is a major

concern in the minds of the producers; it gives substantial

substance to the fact that the producers wonder just what this

government's policy is going to be on income assurance and what

sort of games they are playing.

In relation to income assurance, I would like to ask the

Minister what his policy is on social services tax on British

Columbia. There are many producers who feel that some of these

products should be taken off the list and others should be

added on — for example, drainage tiles. There is a strong move

for rehabilitation of agricultural land. In many instances, the

involves the use of drainage tiles. Establishing a drainage

system is extremely expensive, often beyond the capabilities of

many producers. But added to this, when they go to purchase the

drainage tile, they have to pay a social service tax of 5 per

cent. I would ask

[ Page 2216 ]

the Minister to remove the tax on this particular commodity

but also to have a review in cooperation with the agricultural

people of this list. I hope that there is no substance to the

thought that the Minister has no intention of adjusting the

social service tax because income assurance can absorb this

cost. This is a fallacious argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe that this

Minister is responsible for administering the social service

tax. I would ask her to confine her remarks to his

responsibilities on this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if a producer has to pay

social service tax on farm commodities and farm equipment, then

it is reflected in his position in income assurance. The

Minister appears to feel that this doesn't matter, that this is

something income assurance would absorb. I suggest that this is

a policy which should be reviewed, because many producers are

not on income assurance and therefore they have to pay this tax

without receiving any benefits from income assurance. This is

just an added cost to the producer, putting coins in the

provincial treasury — some could say for waste on empty offices

and things like this. But we would hope there are some

constructive programmes. But, also, the income assurance

programme really doesn't absorb to total cost. I suggest that

the Minister's argument in this area doesn't hold water. I

would ask him to give us a commitment that there will be a

review of these products and that he won't suggest that income

assurance absorb the 5 per cent tax.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to go back for just a moment

to rural electrification, where the Minister said we should

strike a balance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member indicate

where in this vote we have rural electrification? If he is

speaking in relation to a specific item in the vote, he would

be in order, but I would ask him to relate his remarks to a

specific item in this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I could start my

comments in a different manner and say that I would like to see the Minister

— this has been discussed for some length of time, and it was discussed on the

agriculture committee — bring under the umbrella of the ARDA programme rural

electrification, because in some areas it is a very costly and high expenditure

for an individual farmer and it certainly does improve the operation of the

farm and could be brought under the umbrella of the ARDA programme. Does that

satisfy the Chairman? When we are talking about striking a balance, Mr. Chairman,

the ARDA programme, in my estimation, is to improve and open up — improve the

production of agricultural land, open up new agricultural land. The Minister

says we should strike a balance between how far we are going to go. If people

want to move out into the country, they are moving out into an area which has

previously been bush. They are moving out; they are still pioneering; they are

opening up areas for the production of food.

I have heard the Minister say the world is starving and we

need to increase our production. I believe one of his aims is

to make British Columbia self-sufficient in the production of

food. The only way we can do it is to open up more agricultural

land. There are certainly many hundreds of thousands of acres

in your area, Mr. Chairman, and in all of the northern parts of

the province that have not been brought into production. A lot

of it is in scrub brush timber at the present time. By new

methods of fertilizing and rotating of crops, this land can be

brought into production. So maybe the Minister would advise me

just how far he wants to go in bringing this unproductive land

under production.

I think we have to have a policy, and where do we go? Do we

first of all go and put in the roads and put the land up for

bids? Or is the government going to clear the land itself, and

then lease it back? There are, as I say, hundreds of thousands

of acres that could be brought in — land that's presently going

to waste. It's not even producing merchantable trees; it's

under aspen and poplar. By proper management, this land can

produce good legumes; it can assist in cattle production.

Where is the balance? How far do we go? Are we interested in

opening up this land for food production, or are we not? I

think this is a question we have to ask ourselves. If we're

going to open this up for food production.... I've seen it

happen: a farmer goes farther into the area, then others follow

and pretty soon there's a need for rural electrification.

If you're going to tell these people.... I hear it all the

time — a person moves into a remote area where there presently

are not good roads so school buses and so forth can service the

children of these families. If there's not going to be rural

electrification, then they are really not interested in opening

up this land.

This is what the ARDA programme is all about — to improve the

land for the production of foodstuffs. We have a $5 million

vote for ARDA. What is going to be used for other than

assistance in improving land that is presently under

production? Maybe we should extend it to bring unproductive

land into production. I think the Minister should work with the

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

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), who is

a director of Hydro, to have the formula changed. I spoke at

some great length in this

[ Page 2217 ]

Legislature during the Premier's estimates on this very

subject. The Premier said that he would look into the

possibility of a change in the formula so that the more remote

areas, and the farmers who are still waiting for the hydro to

come.... I don't think we're going to get the opportunity to

discuss this under the estimates of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. If there's more money needed in

this vote, the money certainly should be available. After all,

you know, as you go through these estimates here, between $6

million and $11 million is being used strictly for advertising

the government's programmes. This money could be used to assist

the farmers in this area.

As you know, we've taken $5 million to establish a

think-tank out at the University of British Columbia which is

producing no results whatsoever for this government. As a

matter of fact, I think they're sort of letting it die by its

own ends. The Minister says that he has asked for a big

increase, but you must remember there's a difference. When the

government has no regard for money and wastes it on careless

spending and on other items that are not really assisting the

people of this province, then we have to ask for more. Now if

the government was being prudent in spending the taxpayers'

dollars, trying to save the taxpayers' money, we could say,

well, they're trying to decrease taxes and, yes, we shouldn't

provide these services. But when we have a government, as I

say, that has no regard for the taxpayers' dollars and wastes

many, many millions and millions of dollars.... We also have

those farmers who go to those remote areas, who are still

paying their additional 2 cents per gallon for gasoline for

lower mainland transit. There always should be a balance. If

the farmers of the province are going to pay for lower mainland

transit — which is losing $17 million a year, by the way; Hydro

has to subsidize it — surely to goodness we can stand some more

assistance for rural electrification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he is proposing an increase in the amount of money in this

vote? I would point out to him that this is not permitted,

because we're considering the request by this Minister for a

certain amount of money under this vote, and whether or not it

should be granted. Therefore we debate whether or not the money

should be granted to this department for this vote. You're

proposing your own estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: My point really is: could the Minister move to work with

the federal government to bring rural electrification under this vote? There

are many areas throughout the Cariboo and the central interior that need to

upgrade their Hydro service from straight power to three-phase so that their

equipment for irrigation will be less costly. The Minister

is well aware of this He travels around the province. As I say,

what really grieves me.... I was quite astonished at the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), a man who has

wasted $358,000 of the taxpayers' money on empty office space

because he hasn't any management ability....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the estimates in vote 7?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, do we have two rules? When

the Minister of Public Works was speaking in the Legislature

this morning he was rambling all over the place and I didn't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair, if you recall,

called him to order on two or three occasions. I'm trying to

apply the rules equally to the Minister of Public Works and to

the other Members as well. But I would ask you to relate your

remarks to a specific item within this....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to remind you, Mr. Chairman,

that I don't think that Minister had the right — a Minister who

wastes the taxpayers' dollars the way he wastes taxpayers'

dollars — to stand in this Legislature....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member comment

on his remarks rather than making comments about the

Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture would like to tell me if

he's planning this and explain to me what his policy is going

to be with regard to opening up more farmland. Certainly if

more money is required in the Department of Agriculture it

should certainly be available. We also have, Mr. Chairman, as

you know, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) going on an ego trip,

taking $350 million to build an oil refinery. And that is not

necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again I would ask the Hon.

Member to confine his questioning and remarks to the specific

items of this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have to relate to spending of money,

Mr. Chairman, to the spending of money. That's what I'm doing.

If we can spend money on one project, then we can have more

money for another project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: How could I make my point?

[ Page 2218 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make the distinction again for the

Hon. Member. What we are considering here is an estimate being

requested by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the

Department of Agriculture. It's at a maximum amount, and the

Hon. Member is to question whether this amount should be

granted to the government for this purpose, not to propose his

own estimates. It is not the purpose of estimates to propose

your own estimates, but rather to question the estimates that

are put before you. Would the Hon. Member speak to the

vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: As usual, I'll certainly abide by your

decision, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture will

comment on the questions I've posed.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) accuses me of being political when I talk about the

wonderful things we have done for agriculture in the Province

of British Columbia in our short two years and nine months.

Meanwhile, as is her habit in every debate, with every phrase

she utters she drips venom. That's just her way of doing it. I

suppose she has no other way of speaking. It's unfortunate, but

it certainly doesn't add to the debate. If I were to discuss

the Gift Tax Act, the Succession Duty Act and the SS and MA

legislations, I would be just as out of order as she was in her

remarks; so I will not. If she were to ask me what my policy

was with respect to those Acts, then I suggest this should have

been done under vote 3.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), picked

up the discussion, which was rather out of order, but if we

relate it to the possibility of including rural electrification

under the ARDA programme, then I suppose we could stretch it so

that it would be in order. As I said, this is a

provincial-federal agreement that does not at this time include

rural electrification.

I'd like to make my position again that I think we have to

strike a balance. In the ARDA programme, it is a system of

grants where the local producer pays only one-third. In other

provinces it was one-quarter; 75 per cent was shared by the

senior levels of government. But the previous administration in

the province felt that it was fair to charge the producers a

higher proportion, and we have not yet been able to change that

agreement. It is being renegotiated.

But there is another programme available and that, of

course, is the ALDA programme. It is available for opening up

new land. I think there is ample evidence to show that this

administration does believe in assisting farmers in the more

remote areas and does believe in assisting them to open up

land.

There are some figures; they are not the most up-to-date ones. Since March,

1974, under our ALDA programme, 592 contracts for land development were issued

for a face value of $3.5 million. This was by the end of the calendar year.

By the end of the fiscal period, we had used up the total amount of $4.5 million.

That was the original vote of $2.5 million plus a special warrant of $2 million,

a total of $4.5 million.

By contrast, the previous administration had a total of 184

contracts — that is in the last fiscal year under the previous

administration — rather than 592 contracts. They issued only

184. Rather than the $4.5 million that we spent in the fiscal

period, the previous administration spent only $526,200. So I

suggest to you there is real evidence that this administration

does believe in working with the farmers and in helping to

develop the agriculture industry in clearing lands.

You say there is a difference now that there's a big

increase in the budget. But there is a difference now. There

was an election in August of 1972, and we now have a government

that believes in these programmes. That is the difference.

A discussion of transit losses and the think-tank are not

proper under this vote, so I'll not get into that

discussion.

The concern on the part of the Member that there would not

be time to deal with the estimates of the Minister of Lands and

Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams). I suggest to you that that is

something, really, that should be laid on your own heads.

Yesterday, for example, some three to four hours were spent

discussion a court case that dealt with an historic happening,

a court case that is long since past....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STUPICH: ...and the time for appeal long since

past.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister

to speak to this vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: But the fact that we don't have enough

time to discuss this vote properly or to discuss the other

votes in my department properly or the other votes for other

Ministers is something that should be laid completely on the

heads of the opposition. You can bear the cost of that

yourselves.

MRS. JORDAN: Absolute garbage!

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I was quite

interested in the Minister's remarks, saying that he was never

political, then even getting into election time here in

replying to the Member for North Okanagan. I just would like to

pursue rural electrification a little further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon.

[ Page 2219 ]

Member embarks on this discussion, I would ask him, if he's proposing that

it be brought under ARDA, to indicate....

MR. FRASER: Yes, I think that we....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You must speak to the items as they're listed here in

the vote.

MR. FRASER: We're speaking to that now, are we not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. FRASER: The difficulty with rural electrification is that

there are just not adequate funds. Whether it comes out of here or

there, I don't know. I would say the same as the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips): we've had a $3 million vote for extension of

rural electrification for years.

With inflation, that is now worth only about $1 million. There are a lot of

people — the Minister of Agriculture hears from them — who want extension of

existing rural electrification or the upgrading of it.

I can't see why it doesn't come under ARDA.

The other thing I want to say to the Minister on this vote is that

he has done some good things for agriculture, I'd like to point out

some of the things that he should know about that are happening in

other departments that are nullifying a lot of the good work

Agriculture is doing.

I refer to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), regarding the mineral rights on farmland.

The Minister replied to that; I spoke on it then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon.

Member indicate what mining rights have to do with any of the items in this vote?

MR. FRASER: Well, it's to do with the operation of the Agriculture department

and how they are trying to help the farmer, and other departments are

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are not considering the operation of

the department; we're considering specific items under this vote.

MR. FRASER: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very specific, and I would ask the Hon. Member to....

MR.

FRASER: The development of farmlands and so on. Putting more farmland into production

was just discussed before. I would like to relate to the Minister what's going

on in his colleague's, the Minister of Land's (Hon. R.A. Williams'), department

regarding the agricultural land.

Just recently the individuals are applying for land that's classed

as agricultural. I refer to Crown lands.

Always in the past the applicant got the timber that went with it. Now

they're saying that they can't have the timber; they can't even bid on

the timber. they're

certainly willing to pay for the timber — I'm referring to the

applications for agricultural land — but they will not even

allow them to bid on the timber that's on Crown land. This is

nullifying the act of this land going into agricultural

production. There's no question about it, because the people who

are trying to develop land can get some income from his. Of

course, now they're denied it by the Minister Lands and

Forests. I don't think the Minister of Agriculture knows this

is going on. I'm just saying his though: this will certainly slow down

the opening up of

agricultural land in this province. It is doing it now.

There is another thing that hasn't been discussed, Mr. Chairman,

which I think properly comes under his vote. What about the cattle

complex that was discussed,

I believe in February or early March, and as supposedly going

in the area of Kamloops? The Minister did reply at that time,

but I imagine there have been new developments. I'd like to hear what

hey are regarding the cattle complex for a feedlot setup as well as a

marketing complex in the Kamloops–Cache Creek area.

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

Chairman, on a couple of questions hat were asked yesterday and follow up on some of he answers

that the Minister gave with regard to question asked by the

Member for South Peace River Mr. Phillips) and myself regarding

tax payments on eased land, if I could go back a couple of

weeks to answers the Minister made in question period.

The Minister told us the Land Commission paid axes, or at least

there was legislation under which the and

Commission must pay taxes. He also said there as money in the

estimates for property tax purposes. Both of those statements

aren't strictly correct, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, the

Land commission Act only says that they "may" pay municipal taxes.

Secondly, the money in the estimates is this $100,000 in this vote,

which is clearly

determined only for leased land.

First of all, the Minister said yesterday: "Well, I guess the

government policy over the years has been and

still is that the amount paid will be comparable o the local

tax situation." Mr. Chairman, that isn't strictly correct either

because the government has been riding on the backs of taxpayers for

years and ears with regard to local property taxes, whether it be lease

land or land that is owned by a government grown agency or department.

Most of the time the

[ Page 2220 ]

government will pay 15 mills towards property taxes. That's

certainly not comparable to what the local government body

needs to operate its municipality. I don't know of any

instances where the government ever pays school taxes. It pays

only for general and debt services. So that statement isn't

correct either.

The Minister went on, in answer to those questions later, to

say:

We're not leaving ourselves open to special assessments that

we're afraid some taxing authorities might place on us. So if we feel that the

tax levy imposed is a fair one, then the amount paid will be the same as is

being levied on similar landowners in that community.

I don't know who decides whether the tax levy is fair. First

of all, the Assessment Authority of British Columbia, which is

supposed to be an authority completely independent from

government, makes the assessment now under the new legislation;

then the municipal government has to pass a budget based on

those assessments and based on the amount of money it needs to

operate its municipality for the year. So why would the

government come along and decide there was something unfair

about that? I am just asking the Minister if that is a back

door that the Minister of the Land Commission or any other

government department can slip out of if it decides that it

doesn't want to pay the full property taxes in the

municipalities.

In answer to another question of the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips), yesterday, the Minister then went on to

say that there will be no loss of revenue by virtue of the fact

that ownership has changed from private ownership to Land

Commission ownership. I would like to know whether the Minister

means that when the government takes that particular piece of

land, the government will continue to pay the taxes that were

levied on that land at that time. Everyone knows that because

of the increases on assessments, particularly on vacant land,

many property taxes went up six and eight and 10 times on

vacant land. If the Land Commission, for instance, or some

other government body had taken over that land prior to that

increase, would the government only pay the taxes that were

levied before or will it pay the increases?

If I could just relate it to a specific situation, Mr.

Chairman, I would say that on 2,000 acres of land bought by the

government recently in Langley, taxes last year were

approximately $100,000. This year, given the 20 per cent tax

increase that the municipality is going to encounter, those

taxes will be around $120,000. The question I would like to ask

the Minister then is if he will follow through on the

commitment that he seemed to make yesterday, but he skirted

around a little bit. If those municipal taxes this year on that

particular piece of land are $120,000, will the Department of

Agriculture or the Land Commission pay that $120,000? That is a specific item

for which a specific answer could be given.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member can

only expect to get an answer on those lands which are under the

jurisdiction of this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: That is what I am talking about, Mr.

Chairman — those lands under the jurisdiction of this

Minister.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take

this opportunity to thank the Minister of Agriculture, his

staff and the Land Commission...

MRS. JORDAN: For pointing out the error of your ways.

MR. LEWIS: ...for the fine job they did in making

representations to the hearings regarding the proposed CPR line

through some 27 farms in the Shuswap district. The CPR had

intended to put in a new line which would have wound through

any number of farms, making many of those farms unworkable and

unviable, and causing considerable problems in regard to the

environment in that area. I would just like to say that the

presentation made by the Land Commission was first class and

certainly should have some bearing on the outcome of those

hearings.

Also I would like to make a few comments in regard to

statements made by opposition Members in this House and in

particular the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and

the negative stand she takes in regard to programmes that have

taken place in this province under this Minister during his

time in office.

How she can stand up in this House and be so critical of the

farm income assurance programme, which is there for the

betterment of the farmers and commodity groups, is beyond me. I

just hope that everybody in her riding and people throughout

this province hear the stand that that party is taking, because

prior to this government's being elected there wasn't a plan

for, agriculture in this province. Farmers were left out in the

open at the mercy of every cut-throat organization there was.

But under this Minister there has been a very solid movement

towards some sort of assurance that the farmer will

survive.

I just hope that the people in her riding get a copy of

Hansard and look at her statements. If they don't, I'm

going to make a point of it to send copies of Hansard

throughout the interior with statements she has made in regard

to the commodity groups and

[ Page 2221 ]

statements that she has made in regard to how the farmers

are being mistreated. They certainly won't agree with her. They

certainly won't support that stand in this province. If she is

returned to this House, I will have completely lost faith in

people in this province, I'll tell you that.

This Minister has done more for agriculture in this province

in the three years since he has been elected than all the

previous governments in this province together. That includes

Liberals, Conservatives and Social Credit put together.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be more

specific in dealing with items under this vote?

MR. LEWIS: I don't know how I can be more specific, Mr.

Chairman. I think I have hit the nail right on the head in

regard to how I have condemned that Member's attitude toward

agriculture and the Minister of this province.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, in hitting the nail on the head,

that Member better watch that he doesn't hit his thumb. I am

amazed at how consistently this Member gets up and tries to

twist the facts and play politics. He talks about the record in

this province! Mr. Chairman, I challenge that Member to say the

same things in his constituency that he says in this House,

because there is a growing record of inconsistencies in that

Member's statements!

He will come down here and champion one thing and he'll go

home and tell his constituents he doesn't believe it. He stands

up in this House, Mr. Chairman, and damns the former

administration up and down. Yet on television — CHBC-TV in the

Okanagan Valley — he went on record, publicly, to say that the

producers of this province fared better under Social Credit

than they did under the current Minister. You deny that and

I'll produce the film!

MR. LEWIS: That's a lie!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, he is so mixed up!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: He stands for anything he thinks his

constituents will fall for. He's a man whose principles should

be questioned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Talking about the record, Mr. Chairman, I'll

quote Hansard — I'll quote Hansard on

agriculture. And I'll quote the Member for North Okanagan....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that if the

Member wants to make that kind of a political speech attacking

the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), a more appropriate

place would be to hire a hall in his riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order....

MRS. JORDAN: I don't have to hire a hall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair wishes to make a point of order in

this respect. The Hon. Member for Shuswap was out of order

partially and I called him to order and asked him to be more

specific.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We've allowed the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan a similar amount of time in order to relate her

remarks to the vote, too, and I am just cautioning her to

relate her remarks to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're a biased Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the remarks that the

Chair is biased. If you wish to attack the Chair, there is a

proper method to do it. I would at least ask the Hon. Member to

use the courtesy of using the proper method of attacking the

Chair! (Laughter.) I don't mind the Chair being attacked as

long as it is done according to the rules of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I didn't use the

proper method.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All I am asking is that if the Hon. Member

wishes to attack the Chair on any point, he do it in the proper

manner provided. That's all I'm asking.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to attack the Chair

and I don't want to impute that you are not being completely

impartial. But it would appear to me that you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask him to withdraw

unconditionally, Would the Hon. Member stand and please

withdraw the imputation that the Chair was biased?

[ Page 2222 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw, completely

unequivocally, that you were biased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

continue with her speech? Again, I am merely cautioning the

Hon. Member. I am not trying to stifle her speech, I am just

trying to caution her that she should in some way relate her

remarks to the vote. As the Hon. Member for Shuswap did make

mention, at least once, of the farm insurance programme, I

would ask....

MR. PHILLIPS: Just remember, it's only the government.

MRS. JORDAN: That's about the only fact he mentioned, Mr.

Chairman. If this government is so competent in its programmes

and feels they are so completely perfect that they can't be

criticized constructively, or if there hasn't been some concern

about their ability to carry them through, why do they have to

keep patting themselves on the backs? Why do we have to have so

many people get up and so blatantly and shallowly defend the

Minister?

Mr. Chairman, relating to income assurance, I have expressed

on repeated occasions and in this particular debate what some

of the genuine concerns of the producers are. The Member for

Shuswap has asked me where I stand. I won't take long, but let

me quote just a couple of quotations from Hansard of

Friday, March 7, 1975. The speaker is the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) when the question is posed to the

Minister: "Are the boards to be used as a vehicle in

combination with income assurance for manipulating the

producers into a position that the government desires?"

Mr. Chairman, that concern has been borne out by some of the

actions of the government. We don't think they should be used

as vehicles to manipulate the producers into a philosophical

position. When discussing income assurance at the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture convention, that Minister told the

producers that they were the greatest socialists of them all.

Here, take a few pence, take! The Minister was vacillating and

changing the ground rules and, in fact, making finally the

innuendoes that he had been dropping through civil servants — a

deplorable tactic — at various conventions when he brought them

into light by suggesting that there was indeed a shortage of

funds to meet the commitments that he had made. The Member for

North Okanagan is on record as saying on March 7, 1975:

Mr. Speaker, a commitment is a commitment is a commitment, and

this government through its Minister of Agriculture made a commitment and agreed

to principles of an income assurance programme for the producers of this province

together. The producers have put their cards on the table and I call on the

government to do the same. Put your cards on the table. Allay

the concerns of the producers.

Mr. Chairman, we believe, and the producers in this province

believe, that it has been the constant pushing and hammering by

this opposition whenever the opportunity, which is rare under

the new closure rules of this Legislature, to bring to this

government's attention its weakening position and its

vacillating Minister, combined with the pressure in this

Legislature and the excellent work done by the producers

themselves.... in this Legislature and the excellent work done

by the producers themselves.... It is that, and only that,

that has forced this Minister into a position of meeting a

commitment, and even that commitment has been broken in many

instances, such as the milk producers — Mr. Chairman, that and

the fact this government is running scared. It has by nature

proven that it's incapable of responsible budgeting, and this

Minister has proved that he is incapable of making a decision

without testing the political winds first.

The political winds are telling him that there is an

election in the wind, the government is in trouble, and income

assurance is a vehicle through which they could try to buy some

votes — not because they believe in the plan; and he's willing

to keep his original commitment. I challenge this Minister to

meet every original commitment in that agreement. I challenge

the Minister not to invoke his newly found powers where in that

agreement he has the right and the authority to change anything

he wishes, when the producers themselves thought that it was a

mutual agreement, in the agreement made by the two parties,

that only after mutual discussion and mutual agreement would

there be any basic change. If that isn't changing the ground

rules, if that isn't causing concern on the part of the

producers, then I ask that Minister what he thinks will cause

concern.

Our position is strong, Mr. Minister; we don't have to run

around parading a flag as you seem to feel you do. We'll deal

with the agricultural issues when they're presented.

Speaking of income assurance, I would like to bring to the

Minister's attention a matter of concern which relates itself

to income assurance, because if this type of practice is

followed throughout the province, the cost to the cattle

producers, if they do go into income assurance, is going to be

prohibitive.

This is in relation to a major piece of land, 160 acres in total, in the Myers

Flat area of the southern Okanagan. This area is a vital part of an operating

ranch. They are cattle producers, and I assume that they will be having their

voice in the decision of whether or not to take

part in the income assurance

programme. This area is part of a fenced area of that operation of other land,

and this land is being taken away from this viable operation by the Minister

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

[ Page

2223 ]

Williams), and we heard not one word of defence from this Minister, not one

word of concern.

I would ask the Minister what his opinion is of the fact

that this land has been associated with this ranch for over 50

years, the fact that a woman is operating this ranch — a widow

who will be voting on income assurance, I'm sure. Her

management of her rangeland and the operation — and I say it

with no criticism of her husband — is, in fact, considered by

the agricultural department to be far superior to the previous

operation. In other words, there has been no major criticism of

the handling of these rangelands in the past. Everyone

recognizes there can be improvements, but it's felt that since

she has taken over the operation, the management has improved

considerably.

There has been no consultation between the lands branch and

the Department of Agriculture regarding this land and whether

or not it should be retained as a grazing lease by this unit,

whether it should be and is feasible to put part of the land or

the whole of the land into alfalfa production. And the

Department of Lands has called for the whole of the land to be

in alfalfa production.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For the benefit of the

committee, I would request that the Hon. Member relate her

remarks to a specific item in this vote.

MRS. JORDAN ; I'm relating this to income assurance, Mr. Chairman, because

when I mentioned the upset price to you, you'll realize that the effect on income

assurance would be very marked.

There was no consultation between the Lands department and

the grazing branch of the Department of Lands. Yet the Lands

department has set an upset price of $150,526 to purchase this

land, or $7,526 a year to lease this land. That will have a

marked effect if this lady goes into income assurance. But even

if she enters income assurance, the Minister knows, and I know,

that on the basis of the model there is no way a bona fide

rancher can at this time incorporate those costs into a viable

cattle unit.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

This lady applied when she heard that the lands branch wanted this to be

put in alfalfa production. It was their idea; they haven't discussed it with

the Department of Agriculture, and they haven't discussed it with the grazing

branch. She applied even though she knew the land and knew that a major portion

of it has drainage problems, that it would have to be drained before it could

be brought into production — this would probably be in the neighbourhood of

$20,000 to $30,000, along with the upset price — that the only water available

for irrigating would be by well, and this would involve an entirely independent

power system, that the land itself is in a condition of extreme alkalinity due

to the flooding problem, and that only a small portion of the land could be

brought into even one crop a year of alfalfa production. However, she advised

the department that in order to hand on to her lease she would endeavour to

bring what parts she could into alfalfa production. But still this department

of the czar of this government would not a flow her the right to renew her lease.

They set it out for public tender on these terms. Their answer was: "Other people

want the land."

Mr. Chairman, when I discussed this with knowledgeable

people in agriculture, both from the point of view of practical

production and the cost of production, they tell me that there

is no way, at today's return for hay production, that anyone

could do this on an economically viable basis, even with income

assurance. There is no income assurance for hay production at

this time, unless they were extremely wealthy and were prepared

to subsidize it.

Now my question to the Minister is: why has there been no

discussion between your department and the Lands department in

this area? Is the Minister prepared to give us a commitment

that he will intervene on behalf of this producer? Will the

Minister assure us that he will stand behind the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association, the White Bay Cattlemen's Association

and other people, the MLAs of the area, myself, who want to see

that this lady's bona fide ranching rights are protected? Will

the Minister advise this House on how many other pieces of

Crown land are being alienated from viable production

operations by the lands branch — any that he knows about — and

does he have any suspicions that there are others that he

doesn't know about?

What is the Minister going to do to stop this constant

erosion of grazing land? This breaking and chipping away of

family production units that are viable is going to destroy

agriculture in the cattle industry, whatever you do about

income assurance, and it is going to reflect itself in the

higher cost of beef to the consumers. So the consumer in

British Columbia is going to lose; the producers in British

Columbia are going to lose. The then Minister will find himself

in a position of propping up a programme which the Minister's

own government, or the former government, cut apart.

In other words, where does this Minister of Agriculture

stand in weight with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams)? Why isn't he standing up for

the producers in this area? Will he give us the assurance

today?

One could almost accuse somebody in this government — and I

would assume in this instance it would be the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, although the Minister of

Agriculture could

[ Page 2224 ]

be included if he doesn't defend this woman's right — of

practising some form of discrimination. Here we have a lady who

is knowledgeable in the business, who is willing to assume the

responsibility, and her stumbling block is Big Brother

government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like the Minister to

comment on the tax situation a little further than he did yesterday.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In pursuing this question of rural electrification

under ARDA, I don't think I can add anything further to what I have said already.

It is not an ARDA programme. It would be more appropriate under ARDA, I believe,

and could be pursued under that.

The cattle complex. The industry committee is working with

the Department of Agriculture, and certainly I'm ready to move

as soon as there is agreement reached between the industry

committee and the department on the programme.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), in asking

questions about this vote and code 090 with respect to tax

payments on lease lands, should note that it is tax payments on

leased land. In other words, on land that is required by the

Land Commission and is then available for lease to farmers,

under this vote, we would pay taxes levied. All taxes that are

levied we pay under this vote. As the property is turned over

to my property management branch and is leased out to farmers,

then under this vote we accept the responsibility for paying

all taxes levied on those lands.

The Assessment Authority. We discussed that. Of course, that

is not under my authority at all.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) again, I

believe, was attributing to me a quotation to the effect that

there was a shortage of funds to meet commitments. I deny

making any such statement. There is no shortage of funds to

meet commitments, and there will be no commitments beyond my

ability to finance those commitments.

With respect to farm income assurance, the total is $27

million. There will be no commitments beyond that. There will

be no shortage of funds to meet commitments.

The grazing division used to be under the lands branch. At the request of the

B.C. Cattlemen's Association — not simply because they asked for it but certainly

in line with the request of the cattlemen's own organization — the grazing division

was transferred from lands to the forest branch. The Department of Agriculture

has absolutely no authority over the grazing division. The question should be

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

As I suggested earlier, it is on the heads of the opposition themselves that

they don't have time to ask those questions in the proper place.

I was asked if I was going to intervene on behalf of someone

who has a problem with the grazing division. Certainly, if that

person cares to write me a letter, I'm quite prepared to look

into it and to discuss it with the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources.

MRS. JORDAN: There is no liaison between the Agriculture

department and the grazing branch. Although the cattlemen

recognize....

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: They certainly don't want this type of vacant

attitude on the part of the Minister. There should be very

constant dialogue among the grazing division, the lands branch

and the Department of Agriculture. For the Minister of

Agriculture, who bends his arm and his elbow, priding himself

on his accomplishments, to stand up here and say that he had no

intention of rising to the defence of this agricultural

production unit is simply unbelievable.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the original cracker just spoke.

Mr. Chairman, I simply can't accept the Minister's answer. I

would impress upon him the need for dialogue between these two

branches. There should be no agricultural lands alienated, no

grazing lands alienated, without the consultation of the

grazing division or without consultation with the Agriculture

department. After all, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources made a statement in the north end of the island that

lands are more important than people. Is this policy again

being endorsed by this Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it difficult to find this under this

vote, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just following the Minister's

comments, I would say that his comment that there is no time to

bring these matters up under other Ministers' debates should

hang very heavy on his head. This government is forcing

selective closure on this House. This Minister himself is

hiding behind the skirts of the Chairman, is hiding behind the

skirts of mother democracy....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Withdraw! Withdraw!

[ Page 2225 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Madam Member. I can't find that in vote

7 either. Would you please return to vote 7?

I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public Works.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Minister of empty office

space.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are out of order, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: They have wasted twice as many hours in

this debate as any previous government.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the Member

was not listening when I spoke on this question of the grazing

division, I would like to say once more that the grazing

division was under the lands branch, and is now under the

forest branch. It has never been under the Department of

Agriculture as far back as I can go in history. With respect to

what she said, if she knows some of these things, I am

surprised that she opens her mouth and says some of the things

that she does.

I did not say in the course of my remarks that I was not

prepared to discuss this matter with the Minister. I simply

said that if that Member or that correspondent wishes to take

this up with me or to write to me, then I am quite prepared to

discuss it with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. But the administration of the grazing division is

under the forest branch.

MR. McCLELLAND: It seems as we move along here that we are

getting a clearer picture of what the department policy will be

with regard to paying municipal taxes. As the picture becomes

clearer, it also becomes foggier. The Minister says now that

the department will pay full municipal taxes, all taxes, on

lands, which have been leased out to farmer-operators. That is

fine, although I don't quite understand why we need $100,000

for that purpose. I would expect that good property management

would include in a lease the provision for the payment of taxes

by the lessee. I think that is normal, standard procedure in

leasing property such as this. I don't understand why there

needs to be $100,000 for that purpose in this vote.

Further, is the Minister saying that we will pay full

municipal taxes on lands that are leased out, but that we won't

pay full municipal taxes on land that has not yet been leased

out? I would come back to my question about the 2,000 acres in

Langley. I know this is under the Land Commission vote, and I

can wait if you want, but it is interrelated, Mr. Minister, because, you know, you have said that as they get

transferred over to your property management department, then

you are going to pay full taxes. But I think the Minister must

tell us whether he means that he won't pay full taxes on land

that hasn't yet been leased out.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member has answered his own question:

on land that is leased out the Land Commission will pay taxes.

We will discuss Land Commission when we get to that vote. As to

why we need $100,000 — we don't know how much land is going to

be transferred during the course of the year. In some cases the

leases provide for the lesser to pay the taxes; in some cases

the lessee. Again, these are all negotiated on a one-to-one

basis, and it varies.

MR. McCLELLAND: I won't bring the same matter up again until

we get to vote 9, but I did want to ask a couple of other

questions regarding the answers the Minister gave in connection

with the proposed poultry-processing plant in the interior of

British Columbia, The Minister indicated that there wouldn't be any direct

subsidy from consolidated revenue, from the taxpayers of this

province, for this facility which he has admitted, according to

his own feasibility studies, will loose money for at lease

three years. The company which is going to operate that

proposed facility is 40 per cent owned by the government. Is

that not correct? So if any losses, 40 per cent of those losses

will be borne by the taxpayers of British Columbia, which in

effect is a direct subsidy from the people of British Columbia

as long as the government maintains ownership in that facility.

If the thing loses money for three years, then the people of

British Columbia lose money for three years as well. I would

like the Minister to tell me whether he agrees with that

assessment or not.

The question I would like to ask in addition to that is: how

much intervention, if any, will the Department of Agriculture

make to the broiler board to ensure the needed flow of broiler

chickens that is necessary for the success of that plant?

How much intervention will the department take

part in in

order to make sure that we get up to the needs? In the press

release that the Minister made on October 16, 1973, he said

that to be in a sound economic position the plant required 2.5

million pounds of product annually. Yet presently only some

1,300,000 pounds are available. That's a considerable shortfall

at the present time, Mr. Chairman. I wonder how the Minister is

going to make up that shortfall?

It's too bad that there wasn't some kind of an outside study

done so we could all have a look at it. But the Minister said

it was an in-house study. He also promised to tell us how much

the projected losses are. I'd like to know whether the

feasibility study

[ Page 2226 ]

that the Minister talked about last night recommended any

other areas rather than this part of the interior for that

poultry-processing plant. For instance, did any of the people

in your department recommend that that poultry processing plant

might better have gone to the Kootenay area, Prince George or

the Peace River area, all of which are served to a large degree

by Alberta product at the moment? Even though I understand the

criticism that the Okanagan area is served by Fraser Valley

chicken to a large degree, at least it's all British Columbia

product. In those other areas, it's practically all Alberta

product. I'd like to ask whether or not the feasibility study

recommended any other area rather than the area in which the

poultry-processing plant now seems to be going.

I also would like to point out that the marketing board

itself has done a number of feasibility studies. It was pointed

out that in the '60s the industry tried to establish in that

area on quite a few occasions and always went bankrupt.

MR. LEWIS: That's false.

MR. McCLELLAND: All the feasibilities done since 1968 have

pointed out that without some kind of availability of

provincial funds, the operation cannot be economically

viable.

So, Mr. Chairman, the only other question I'd like to ask in

relation to this is: what happens, for instance, if the plant

doesn't make money after the three years? Who pays for those

losses then? I just think that somewhere along the line there

has to be a direct taxpayer subsidy. Even by virtue of the fact

that the Government of British Columbia owns a 40 per cent

interest in the company which operates it, the losses will be

borne to some degree at least by the people of British

Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister going to answer

the Member for Langley's question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot force anyone to answer

anything, Madam. Do you wish to speak?

MRS. JORDAN: Are you going to answer the Member's

questions?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll certainly yield the floor to the Minister

if he would like to answer now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to the 10K plant: as I said yesterday,

no direct subsidy. Now that does not preclude the possibility or even the likelihood

that they will qualify for assistance under the Farm Products Industry Improvement

Act, which calls for a discount of interest.

The three-years losses. The fact that a company in its first

three years of operation experiences losses does not mean that

the shareholders will be called upon to make up those losses.

That would mean calling upon the producers, of course, to put

up 60 per cent of the losses in that period. The likelihood is

that the losses will be accumulated in the opening years; the

hope is that the profits in subsequent years will make up for

those losses. There will be no direct government subsidy to

make up for the operating losses in the early years.

Any other areas recommended? No, because the possibility of

the plant becoming profitable in the future depends upon a

relatively large market for the fresh kill. The largest market

available, apart from the lower mainland itself, is the

Okanagan area. That is why the committee is not recommending,

really, that there be any plant in the interior, but if there

was going to be one in the interior, it should be in the

general Okanagan area.

MRS. JORDAN: Just further to the Minister's statement, I

apologize if I missed the point. Who did the studies on the

disease factor regarding poultry in the lower mainland? Would

the Minister be prepared to make this study available to the

House? Also, what studies have been done to ascertain whether

there is any danger of there being a disease problem when the

transfer of a major portion of poultry production takes place

in the Okanagan area?

I think the Minister recognizes that the Okanagan is a very

narrow valley. Low water lands are part of our problem.

Drainage is a major problem in the area, both subsurface and

surface drainage, to the point where certain areas of the area

might be, without the Minister's knowledge, absolutely frozen

at the moment. You can't build a house; you can't put in a

septic tank because of the underground water patterns, which

apparently are shifting with geographic shifting of soil. In the last earthquake some shifted. So we're getting

extraordinary outcroppings of water, which is reflecting itself

in problems of production in major fields as well as septic

tanks and in relation to stream areas. In regard to the fact

that the Minister has expressed concern about the disease

factor, perhaps he would assure us that major studies will be

done to be sure that there is no introduction of this factor

into the Okanagan.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the references I made

yesterday to the fact that there is increasing concern about

the loss of efficiency of poultry meat and egg production in

the Fraser Valley, which was attributed to the heavy

concentration of poultry population in that area, was reported

in a fairly recent issue of Canada Poultryman. I can

look

[ Page

2227 ]

that up — I don't recall the author of it, but that's where

I read it. I could look it up for the Member if she wants to

repeat her request for a copy of that magazine.

With respect to the difficulties about locating the

poultry-processing plant in the interior, I appreciate the

difficulties and that is why we have been frustrated for a year

and a half now in trying to find the best location and a

location that would be suitable from every point of view. We're

still trying to find that location.

Vote 7 approved.

On vote 8: special and regulatory services programmes,

$4,345,770.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister would outline the core

of the biological and insect control programme, and whether he

is expecting any dramatic breakthrough in these areas in

relation to some of the more specific diseases such as the

cherry fruitfly.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last

phrase.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you expecting any dramatic breakthrough or

have under study the cherry fruitfly situation? As the

Minister may know, this has been a disease disastrous to the

cherry producers in the Okanagan because they have had to

literally cut out their orchards, good or affected, in order to

build up barriers so there couldn't be an extension of this

insect.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, either the Member is talking

about something that I'm not familiar with or she is referring

to the little-cherry disease. Would it be the little-cherry

disease problem?

MRS. JORDAN: Locally they call it the cherry fruitfly.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, that's one of the means by which

they expect that it is spread. Am I expecting any dramatic

breakthrough? I don't know. I think I quoted the director of

the Agassiz research station some time ago to the effect that

all of the easy things have been done. A tremendous amount of

research has been done on this question of the little-cherry

disease. The fact that we haven't had any such breakthrough,

and have no reason to expect that there will be a breakthrough,

is the only reason that we're pursuing the only known method of

control, which is to eradicate it wherever we see it, to remove

infected trees and to remove trees in the vicinity of infected

trees.

Things look good now, but there's no telling when there

might be another outbreak. All we can do is hope that there

will be some breakthrough. That's one of the reasons why we're

very concerned that the federal government is not putting as

much money into research, into problems such as this, as we

would like them to. We're continuing the pressure trying to get

them to do so. But I have no reason for expecting a dramatic

breakthrough. That doesn't mean that there won't be one. We can

only hope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, I would ask leave of the House

to make an introduction that was impossible this morning.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have in the galleries — they just came in

about five minutes ago — a large music class from John Peterson

junior high school in Kamloops, accompanied by Mr. Pashnik and

Mr. Epp. I would ask the House to make them welcome. Thank you,

Hon. Members.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I asked during the

votes under the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and

I'll ask again here: what attempts have you made to try to get

taxes off veterinary supplies? I get many letters and phone

calls from people, especially in the poultry business, who are

still paying sales taxes. That seems quite unnecessary,

especially when you think of the kind of money we're talking

about in the previous vote for income assurance. If agriculture

is all that marginal, surely your department could be making

stronger overtures to the Minister of Finance to remove the

last vestige of, I think, unnecessary sales taxes on, I gather,

all veterinary supplies — and also some, especially for the

poultry business, really, strange items. You know, ordinarily I

would just assume in agriculture that if you got a tax number

you were exempt from all these things. It seems unfortunate. I

mentioned it in the Minister of Finance's vote and he suggested

I bring it up with you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, under this vote, under code

20, insect biological control programme, is mosquito control

included in the studies that are going on in reference to

that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not with reference to that $100,000.

MR. McCLELLAND: What's happening with mosquito control? You

know, it's really a cumbersome problem now to get spraying done

in areas, particularly in my constituency in the Fort Langley

area along the Fraser River. The delay of

[ Page 2228 ]

getting cabinet approval to get spraying done sometimes

means that, particularly if there's high water, the problem is

so bad by the time cabinet approval comes that people are

literally driven out of their homes. The cattle are driven off

the land.

I don't think that anyone who hasn't experienced the problem

on both sides of the Fraser River would ever understand how bad

it is — people do get driven out of their homes. Some better

form of control has to be established pretty soon.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question about SS&MA. I can only

be consistent here, I suppose. I said in the previous vote, I

believe, when asked questions about this that if it

were questions about general policy, they should have been

asked under my salary vote rather than now. If they were

questions about SS&MA, they should have been asked under

the Minister of Finance's vote.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Madam Member. The Minister has

the floor.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) asked me about mosquito control. What we're trying

to do here, of course, is walk a tightrope between those people

in the community who are concerned about the environment and

about the effect of sprays and the people who are concerned

about mosquito bites. That's the problem.

Cabinet reacted to this some time ago by saying that we had

to have a tighter control of this situation. When requests for

spraying came in, they had to be dealt with by cabinet rather

than by myself or by someone in my department. Then, as the

pressure accumulated from the people who were being bitten by

the mosquitoes, the cabinet backed off from that position and

gave the responsibility to myself. I, in turn, gave it to

officers in the field. And that would certainly be my

recommendation.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to thank the Minister for that

comment, because that's the kind of action that's necessary. I

must say, too, that any time I've attempted to get approvals,

they came very quickly. But you will appreciate that even

quickly is too late in some cases.

MRS. JORDAN: ...particularly the insect and biological

control programme. It's a new vote here.

I mentioned this under a previous vote; I think I must point it out again, Mr.

Minister. I recognize that it is the value we get for the dollar spent that

has to be taken into consideration, but I suggest to you it's a fact that there

is such limited opportunity for the producer to use sprays that have been vital

to his production pattern, the quality control in his production and maintaining

a high standard of use for his land. This opportunity is so reduced now by the

environmental concerns; reflected in the use of sprays. Your insect biological

control programme at this time is simply not going to meet the need that is

imposed upon it. Once again, they will not be able to bring up enough answers

soon enough to help the producer. We don't want more situations of producers

having to kill cattle or seeing their land destroyed because of infestation

by weeds or other diseases.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister of Agriculture is using the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) as one of his most

astute advisers, as it appears, no wonder the Minister of

Agriculture has got some problems. He certainly has my sympathy

in that area.

Once again, the producer's going to be left holding the bag

in this area. It's he who is going to have to bear the cost of

trying to enter into weed control without the tools he needs,

trying to enter into insect control without the tools he

needs.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I agree there is this concern in the

community about the use of sprays that are so necessary in

agricultural production. Last year there was a lot of publicity

given to the use of a hormone, Alar, that attracted a lot of

attention, much more attention than should have been attracted.

I think Canada has an enviable record in the world of

protecting the health of her citizens and in controlling the

use of insecticides, herbicides and materials of that kind

better than any other country in the world. I think our

agricultural industry, too, is being very responsible. The

insect biological control programme, again, is some recognition

of the fact that people are concerned about sprays that we are

using.

For some years now a programme has been underway to try to

develop another method of controlling the codling moth — that

is, sterilizing the males and releasing them. This programme

depends upon having enough sterilized males ready to release;

it depends first upon a thorough and intensive spray programme

to try to reduce the codling population. That will be done this

year. It's a joint programme; It's not the producers only

who'll be paying for it. The producers, the provincial

government and the federal government have agreed that this is

the year they're ready to move on a very heavy spray programme,

followed by this biological control programme that we hope will

give relief from the necessity to spray, at least for a number

of years. It's something that has been tried on the laboratory

level.

[ Page

2229 ]

They're satisfied now that it's worth trying in a practical

application. I think it's very interesting, very exciting, and

I'm hoping that it will perhaps point the way some day to

control mosquitoes.

Vote 8 approved.

On vote 9: Provincial Land Commission: $580,510.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I think it would

be very remiss of the opposition to pass vote 9 without some

discussion. This was one of the principal policies implemented

by this government upon coming to power. It's perhaps been the

most contentious piece of legislation, with ICBC a close

second. The government takes some pride in stating that no

opposition party would have the guts to repeal or

substantially alter the Land Commission Act. I think in some

measure that's true. The principle was never contested — namely

that with only 5 per cent of the land arable in the province we

should make some very strenuous efforts to preserve farmland.

The principle is sound. We've seen some amazing situations

along the way since the Land Commission Act was passed.

I am particularly referring to the fact that we see the

government taking a very authoritative position in giving

itself authority to act unilaterally regardless of the

framework of legislation that applies to other levels of

government, particularly the regional and municipal governments

in relation to this kind of legislation.

I don't want to waste a lot of time reiterating a point that

has been made many times, but I wonder if in the course of

replying to these comments on vote 9, the Minister could tell

us one or two things. First of all, the Laws Declaratory Act

amendment, which we passed, in fact, gives this government

complete and total power to act as it sees fit and not to be

bound by legislation which would otherwise bind the Crown. In

simple terms, Mr. Chairman, the power given to the Land

Commission would be to overrule or contradict, or in any way it

wishes thwart municipal or regional decisions regarding the use

of land or improvements.

Could I ask the Minister: has there been any such action

taken using the power under the amendment to the Laws

Declaratory Act in the dealings of the Minister's department or

of the Land Commission?

Secondly, is there any such situation of controversy pending

in the province at the present time where, if local

cooperation or local opinion opposes the Minister's wishes or

the wishes of the Land Commission...? Does the Minister

contemplate that the amendment to the Laws Declaratory Act will

be invoked?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The third question I would like to ask relates to a specific

example of where conflicting levels of government seem to be

either working in isolation or in opposition to one another.

I am referring to the issue that I previously raised about

the Columbia Valley area near Chilliwack where a fair amount of

publicity was given to the fact that the federal government,

apparently acting on its own without consultation with the

provincial government, wants to take something of the order of

700 acres of agricultural land for training grounds for army

cadets.

The first publicity was given in the newspapers on April 7

of this year, and the matter has been raised in the House in

question period, but within the imitations, of time in the

question period we haven't really covered this particular

aspect of land use where we have the most senior level of

government in the country apparently going ahead on its own and

trying to acquire options on land with the provincial

government being left either in the dark or purposely being

avoided.

One of the press statements that appeared at the time of the

publicity given to this area near Chilliwack was that: "The

defence department agents threatened the owners with

expropriation in attempts to get them to sign options on their

land." It's quite clear from some of the comments of the

individuals who were involved that they really had no wish to

sell the land, but a certain amount of coercion or fear was

involved.

In the discussions that had taken place with the Department

of Defence — I'm sorry to say that the Lieutenant-Colonel

concerned — his name is Wallace.... anyway, Lieutenant-Colonel

Wallace at the Canadian Forces Base at Chilliwack said that he

understood that Ottawa had about $1.8 million to spend and the

minimum amount of land required was 700 acres. There were 33

parcels of land and about 24 owners involved. Residents were to

be given until June 30, 1976, to get off the land.

Now without going into all the details of this particular

issue, I want to just ask a general question and follow it with

a specific question. To what degree does the Land Commission

maintain