1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Water supply for Point Roberts. Mr. Chabot

— 745

Education costs. Mr. Wallace — 745

Lakelse Hot Spring Resort. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 745

Alexis Macdonald. Mr. Williams — 745

Milk production costs. Mr. Curtis — 746

Purchase of Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 746

BCR strike. Mr. Phillips — 746

Details of accident on Hope-Princeton Highway. Hon. Mr. Lea — 747

Government involvement in plus-minus pollution control. Mr. McClelland — 747

Provincial cost-sharing in Vancouver fast bus service. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 747

B.C. energy crisis. Mr. Smith — 748

Truck loggers' stumpage formula. Mr. Wallace — 748

Domestic Animal Protection Act (Bill 45). Committee

stage.

Mr. Phillips — 748

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 749

Ms. Sanford — 749

Mr. Williams — 749

Mr. Phillips — 750

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 750

Report and third reading — 750

Livestock Production Act (Bill 46). Committee stage.

Mr. Phillips — 750

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 750

Report and third reading — 751

An Act to Amend the Distressed Area Assistance Act (Bill

67).

Committee, report and third reading — 751

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 752

Mr. Phillips — 752

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 753

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 753

Mr. Wallace — 754

Mr. Rolston — 755

Mr. Williams — 755

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 756

Weed Control Act (Bill 71). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 758

Mr. Phillips — 759

Mr. Steves — 759

Mr. Williams — 760

Mr. McGeer — 760

Mr. Smith — 761

Mr. Gardom — 762

Mr. Lewis — 763

Ms. Sanford — 763

Ms. Brown — 763

Mr. Wallace — 764

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 764

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 765

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act (Bill 24).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act (Bill 29).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

Personal Information Reporting Act (Bill 63). Committee, report and third reading

— 768

An Act to Amend the Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill

21).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Settlement Act

(Bill 22).

Committee, report and third reading — 769

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Bill 23).

Committee, report and third reading — 769

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act (Bill 25).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 769

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 769

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 770

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 770

Report and third reading — 770

Sessional Reports Suspension Act (Bill 20). Committee

stage.

Mr. Smith — 770

Hon. Mr. Hall — 770

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 771

Hon. Mr. Hall — 771

Report and third reading — 771

British Columbia Auditor General (Bill 15). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 771

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 772

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 27). Second

reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 772

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 772

The Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1973 (Bill 33).

Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 773

Hon. Mr. Levi — 773

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 774

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 35). Second

reading.

Mr. Wallace — 775

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 776

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 776

An Act to Amend the Factories Act (Bill 78). Mr.

McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 776

Credit Information Protection Act (Bill 6). Mr. McGeer.

Withdrawal — 776

Statement. Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Speaker — 776

Mr. Gardom — 777

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 778

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 778

Mr. Speaker — 779

Mr. Williams — 779

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 779

Appendix Report of Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries — 780

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1973

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker I would ask the House

to welcome a guest who will be with us again tomorrow, a

distinguished visitor from our neighbouring state, Governor Dan

Evans and Mrs. Evans and their accompanying party.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that I apologize for not

having had given you proper warning, but the Governor and the

Majority Leader of his House are very interested in the

question period; that's why they've come at this time.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join me in welcoming a group of grade 11 students

from Kitsilano Secondary School who are sitting in the gallery

with their teacher Mr. Ippen.

Oral questions.

WATER SUPPLY FOR

POINT ROBERTS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the Premier a question: does the government have any plans

to supply water to Point Roberts in continuing and sufficient

quantities to look after the needs of this parched community.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member

for that question. I'm glad you asked that. (Laughter.) Mr.

Speaker, since the advent of normal rainfall in the northwest — it's returned to normal rainfall — the pressure around this

question is not as great. Discussions are continuing.

EDUCATION COSTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the

lady Minister of Education if the comments made by the single,

all-powerful commissioner into education that schools are

fading away represents the government's policy to save the

costs of education?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, it does not represent

the government's policy. And I do not think the term "all-powerful" is really

applicable to the commissioner. I think he's doing his duty as commissioner

of a new type of commission in getting out around the Province of British Columbia

and getting people to think about education. I think that is what he's doing

very successfully.

LAKELSE HOT SPRINGS RESORT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question on the Lakelse Hot Springs Resort from

the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). In answer to his question whether

or not the health department closed that resort: the owner closed voluntarily

on April 11, after a warning from the health unit in the area about the condition

of the water in his pool. He opened one week before without obtaining a permit

to operate, as required under the regulations now. The pool re-opened on June

14, and closed again voluntarily at the end of September. I don't really think

there's that much swimming up there, but we cannot permit a pool to be opened

if it's not meeting the health requirements. That's the answer to the question.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question

to the Minister: is it the intention of the Government of the

Province of British Columbia to take over or purchase the

Lakelse Hot Springs Resort for any purpose?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's asking

policy. But I don't know of any discussion that we've had in

that regard whatsoever.

We have had a great deal of trouble up there. I didn't want

to go too much further, but we've also had sewage trouble in

the area — dumping of sewage into the stream, lake; I think the

Member knows all of the problems. But it's purely a matter

between the health department and the owners of this hot spring

resort.

ALEXIS MACDONALD

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Minister of Labour: as we are embarking upon

a new direction in labour-management relations in this

province, I wonder if he is prepared to take a lesson from

South Africa and ask the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) if Alexis Macdonald could be made available as a

special officer under the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I suspect it's facetious, but I'm not sure.

(Laughter.) All the facts are not bared to me. (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

am not being facetious. It's obvious that the people in South

Africa have found a very compelling way in which to end

labour

[ Page 746 ]

difficulties — it doesn't involve labour relation boards or

anything else. Men go back to work for that kind of thing, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I am unfamiliar with

the circumstances involved in which the Member raises the

question. Perhaps he should take that up with the Attorney

General if he's asking for the services of the Hon. Attorney

General.

MILK PRODUCTION COSTS

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

the Minister of Agriculture: he made a statement yesterday in

the media, but is he contemplating any meeting at all with

Vancouver Island milk producers in view of the very serious

cost problem that they are facing, as has been reported in the

last few days?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, no

meeting has been arranged. As a matter of fact, they have not

asked for a meeting. However, staff are working on this

question of milk production costs on the Island, as compared to

or contrasted with costs on the mainland.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

immediacy of the situation and its seriousness, would the

Minister not consider initiating such a meeting at his level,

at the Ministerial level?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd consider anything, but at

this moment there are not plans for such a meeting. I do feel

that there is some concern for this, and some immediacy for the

concern which contrasts somewhat with the remarks, either from

the Hon. Member or the one immediately in front of him,

suggesting — when we were discussing farm income assurance last

night — that it's not really an immediate problem.

PURCHASE OF FRUIT GROWERS

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Minister of Transport and Communications whether the Fruit

Growers Mutual Insurance Company has been purchased by the

government?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It is

in the process of being purchased not by the government, by the Insurance, Corporation

of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister, and I thank him then for

his correction, whether the price in question is $706,000?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only fixed item about it is the

guarantee that the shareholders will get $25 per share.

BCR STRIKE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the

damage that is being caused by the untimely strike on the

British Columbia Railway, damage to the lumber industry — North

Central Plywood in Prince George have closed down, throwing 250

men out of work. Would the Minister of Labour advise the House

what is happening with regard to negotiations between the

employees on the British Columbia Railway and the railway?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any great mill

closures in the Prince George area; certainly I haven't been

notified of any. But discussions are underway between officials

of my department and the parties involved in the dispute on the

British Columbia Railway.

I don't feel, Mr. Speaker, that detailed release of the

discussions that are underway would contribute anything to the

possibility to achieving a settlement at this time. So I can

only report that every effort is being made to bring about a

settlement in that dispute.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think this question has been canvassed

yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,

with regard to the negotiating team. It's on the same thing and

it's never been canvassed before by me, Mr. Speaker. It's a

very urgent matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister of Labour advise me how

many men on the negotiating team are from the B.C. Federation

of Labour; how many men on the negotiating team are

ex-employees of the Canadian National Railway; and how many

persons on the negotiating team are from the Canadian Pacific

Railway?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that type of

analysis at hand. I will take the question as notice and

provide the answer tomorrow.

[ Page 747 ]

ACCIDENTS ON HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, yesterday

I told the House that I would report to the House if any new

details were forthcoming in regard to the fatality on the

Hope-Princeton Highway over the weekend.

There have been two cars go over the embankment in that area

since August, 1971. There were three persons in each of those

cars and all were killed. The only other accident that was

similar to the one that happened over the weekend where the

person went too near the edge and fell over was….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: What, the cars? The only other accident that

was similar was that the boyfriend of one of the girls that had

been killed in a car went up to take a look at the spot and

fell over the cliff exactly in the same spot where this

Victoria person did.

It seems to me though that with this many cars going over in

that short period of time it does warrant special attention,

and I am having a special engineering study done there to find

out whether we can solve that accident problem by spending some

money and having some engineering work done.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN

PLUS-MINUS POLLUTION CONTROL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

address my question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I would like to ask first what

plans the government has to enter into an agreement with Mr. Cy

Jones of White Rock to develop his plus-minus method of

pollution control using the coal deposits at Hat Creek.

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

I might say that the staff have carried on discussions with Mr. Jones more or

less since we came into office, and some analyses have .been carried out at

the University of British Columbia with Dr. Coltart and others. There is no

formal relationship, however, and we are considering various pilot opportunities

that would involve university people.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it

true that this government has backed away from an obligation

that it had with Mr. Jones to allow him to have access to the

coal deposits at Hat Creek, and has now forced him to find his

sources outside of British Columbia, both in the United States

and in Alberta?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all of Mr.

Jones' complaints are with the former chairman of B.C. Hydro

and the former appointees of the former administration.

MR. McCLELLAND: No way. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

question. Mr. Jones' complaints are with the present government

and the present Minister, and I'd like to ask a supplementary.

What contact has your executive assistant, Mr. Norman Pearson,

had with Mr. Jones in the past two months, and will you honour

his patents and will you honour the agreements he has with this

government?

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that you are asking the government

to give advice on future policy and you are therefore out of

order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking for future

policy. I'm asking what contact this man has had with the

Minister's executive assistant in the past two months. Were any

promises made during those contacts, and will this government

honour its agreements? That's not asking for future policy.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that the Minister said there were no

agreements. I might be wrong.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I point out that every Member wants to

ask questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You just don't like the answers, that's

all.

PROVINCIAL COST-SHARING IN

VANCOUVER FAST BUS SERVICE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Does the signature of

the Minister at the bottom of ads giving the fare schedules,

routes and other information regarding the new fast bus service

in greater Vancouver mean that the provincial government has

come to an agreement regarding cost-sharing with the

municipalities concerned?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think

there's agreement as to the cost-sharing. I think the question

is whether or not

[ Page 748 ]

there's agreement as to how the money is to be raised.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister why the…?

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that I can accept the one word

answer to my previous question which is "No." (Laughter.) May I

ask the Minister how it's possible for him to put his signature

to this when he has already no knowledge of the financial

arrangements on which, of course, the fares are based, as well

as the schedules, and as well as the other things?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, probably technically you have a

point. (Laughter.) But no one riding the buses has complained

so far. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the buses have hardly got

into service. May I ask the Minister why in his ad he talked

about a 25-cent fare and yet in the time that these buses are

meant to be used, namely rush hour, he's boosting the fare to

40 cents?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, that is basically what the fare will

be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Forty cents, or 25?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Twenty-five cents — within that particular

area which the ad represented.

B.C. ENERGY CRISIS

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Mr. Rhodes, the chairman of the

B.C. Energy Commission, recently made a trip to Ottawa and, as

I understand it, met with the National Energy Board. Does the

Hon. Minister have a report to make to the House concerning the

energy crisis in B.C. with respect to the supply of natural gas

for our own resource use and our own use in the province?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): That was an informal

visit by Mr. Rhodes to the officials of the National Energy

Board yesterday. He's back in town. He's reported to me and

I'll have something to say within two or three days, possibly

tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question on the same subject. Did

the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission meet with the Hon.

Donald Macdonald while he was in Ottawa?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know — and, you

know, it's pretty hard to ask me about what some other person

did or did not do. It's

hard enough to get an explanation out of me, and now you're…. (Laughter.) As far as I know the answer is "no".

TRUCK LOGGERS'

STUMPAGE FORMULA

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to ask the Minister

of Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) when the promised review of

the stumpage formula to the truck loggers will be completed

and, if so, is there to be a two-level formula, one for the

large operators and one for the small operator?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The intention, Mr. Speaker, is to carry

on with the existing formula and keep it under constant review

in terms of anomalies and problems at the marginal end. But

that will simply be an ongoing thing and the existing formula

is being applied in the Interior.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed

to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 45.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Under this

section of

interpretation, maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) would like to advise me how large this fund is. How

much money is involved in this Domestic Animal Protection Fund?

Do sufficient moneys come out of this fund, or sufficient

moneys go into this fund so that it is stabilized? Does the

government have to put money into the fund to look after

replacement of losses, or does the money from the licensing of

dogs keep it pretty well balanced?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe this question should more properly

be raised under

section 14.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I was going to

suggest

section 10, Mr. Chairman, but at least we agree it is

not

section 1.

[ Page 749 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the Hon. Member raise the question again

under

section 10 or

section 14?

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll raise that then, Mr.

Chairman.

Now there could be some controversy over the

interpretation

of exactly what a domestic animal is, and I would like the

Minister to enlarge on this. It says, "tame or kept, or that

has been or is being sufficiently tamed or kept, to serve some

purpose for the use of man; and designated by order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be a domestic animal." Is the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council going to make a complete list of

animals so that people will know what are domestic animals and

what are not domestic animals?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has no intention of designing

these animals, but it will designate them. Yes, it will spell

out in a list the animals that are considered to be domestic

animals. It's conceivable even that in some areas of the

province the list might differ from other areas, and from time

to time it might change.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise me of his definition

of the word "dog"? It says it means "an animal of the species

canine that is apparently over the age of four months." Are

there specific breeds of dogs, or is this all dogs or all

canines, or hot dogs? (Laughter.) No, not hot dogs.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if it were all canines, then it

might include a lot of wild animals as well. What we are

thinking of here are domestic dogs.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): My question is very similar to the

one that was just asked by the Member for South Peace River. I

am really reluctant to bring up this question because I am

afraid the Member for South Peace River might again get going

on this topic. In the definition of "dog," would this

include any wolves who have any trace whatsoever of dog in

them?

Now I understand that in our area, where we have had

problems with wolves attacking domestic stock, some of the

wolves may in fact have a trace of dog in them. I am wondering

if this definition would include them.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What we are talking about here are dogs that might

be licensable, if there is such a word. The sort of dog you are talking about,

I guess one gets into a question of just exactly what percentage of dog or wolf

is in the animal. If it's one that can be considered to be a domestic animal,

if someone owns it — or it owns someone, whatever way you want to look at it

— if it is licensable, then it's a dog. If it isn't, if it's running wild completely,

looking after itself, well then it's not a domestic dog.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm glad the

Hon. Member for Comox raised this problem. Do I understand that

what we are trying to control here are not dogs, as defined in

this Act, but some kind of animal that is licensable? And how

do we determine whether a wolf, which has been tamed, is

licensable or not? I don't find any definition in the

section.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should

be too concerned about the matter because I took the startling

but rather simple procedure of going to the library and looking

in a book. I know it is dangerous sometimes….

I commend the Minister and the draftsman of this legislation

for recognizing the problem which the Member for South Peace

River has so often raised, because I advise the committee that

all dogs belong to a single species, canis familiaris. Other

members of the genus canis include the wolves, the coyotes and

the jackal.

As we have a definite definition here that "dog" means an

animal of the species canine, then I obviously must conclude

that that includes wolves, coyotes and jackals, licensable or

not, tame, partly tame, eighth-bred, quarter-bred, whatever the

case may be. And I am prepared to accept that definition.

As a matter of fact, if you will look at the definition of

"wolf," you find that the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"Wolf, the typical wild species of the dog family." I think

that solves the problem, that we are really talking about

wolves.

However it does create another problem, also in

section 1. I

can only assume that while the ownership of an animal that is

licensable within the normal meaning might include any one of

us in this assembly, obviously the owner of the wolf, in the

true sense the wild dog, must be the person who has control of

that wild dog and that must be the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I commend the Minister of

Agriculture for putting provisions in this

section which are

now going to place on the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation the duty to carry out those responsibilities in

this Act with regard to owners: the payment of all the charges

that the owner must make when the Minister's dogs, namely

wolves, coyotes and jackals, are found destroying domestic

animals.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that when

we are drafting the regulations I will refer to Hansard in this

particular case.

MR. WILLIAMS: I trust that we're not to take from this that

the Minister is by regulation going to

[ Page 750 ]

amend the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then, don't you dare, by regulation,

change the definition of "dog" meaning an animal of the species

canine, which therefore includes wolf.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't change the dictionary.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

has ably defined the word "dog" in this

interpretation section,

and now I am informed actually that this legislation is indeed

going to look after the predator problem, the main part of it

being the wild wolves. Not many of them are licensed, so this

will be the unlicensed section.

I just wonder if the Minister of Agriculture has consulted

with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation before

allowing this to go through. Because indeed, as this is

written, then it will look after the problem and this indeed

will be the legislation, brought in under disguise, to look

after the predator problem in British Columbia.

I want to congratulate the Minister. He nearly got it by me

without me really recognizing what a great job he was doing,

and I think he nearly got it by the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation without him really knowing what was happening to

the predator problem.

This is certainly the

interpretation that I will have to

take from this Act and I will immediately go to the phone and

tell all the ranchers in British Columbia that their predator

problem is going to be solved. Am I right, Mr. Member from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound? Certainly.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've just done something the Social Credit

could never do.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the meantime you're doing your best to

make sure that I don't succeed in fooling him.

Sections I to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will just reiterate the question that I

brought up under the first

section and maybe the Minister would

give me his remarks.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will note from this

section that we are not talking

about any existing fund at all; we are saying that moneys raised by sections

3, 4 and 7 will be paid into this fund and it is expected that this will be

sufficient. In light of experience we may find that it is more than sufficient,

then we will have to come back to the legislature for some further consideration.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Domestic Animal Protection Act , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections I to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the Minister of

Agriculture if he has any intention of setting up a provincial

insemination stock with good breeds in it that cattlemen can

draw from, or is it strictly going to be still by the people

who are doing it now?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the intention at the moment

is that it will be by the people who are doing it now, except

that individuals or even groups of individuals who want to get

together to bring in something in particular may, under this

section, be licensed to do so.

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess I was thinking, Mr. Minister, when the

ranch goes ahead in conjunction with the Dawson Creek

Vocational School, you could have some really good breeding

stock in there which you have been using. Would you, for

instance, put aside some semen and sell it to the local

ranchers so that they could build up their stock? You certainly

will be doing some research and building up stocks on this

ranch and in essence it might help to upgrade the cattle

industry in the Peace River area if you had good semen to draw

from.

[ Page 751 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again we are looking ahead

to the discussions that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) and I will be having about the development at that

school. Assuming it did go in that direction, I think that

would be a very worthwhile addition to the services

offered.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Livestock Production Act , reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill

67, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DISTRESSED

AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67,

An Act to Amend the Distressed Area Assistance Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. As I look

at the orders of the day, this bill is on orders for second

reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill 68, Farm Products Industry Improvement

Act , comes under second reading, and it's only been printed. We

haven't debated it in second reading. We passed the whole Act

in committee. It's pretty sneaky.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come it took you so long?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I looked at the bill and I thought, we

haven't debated that. I thought, well, I guess I must have been

away or something.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'm advised that Bill 68 is still

in second reading on the order paper.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm advised by the order paper. I studied it a

minute ago and I saw that it was not in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have a report from the Chairman of

the committee?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have not had a report from the Chairman

of the committee. There should be no report from the Chairman

of the committee until it's gone through second reading.

What is the pleasure of the House?

MRS. DAILLY: I move that the committee rise on this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you can't because the committee is not

empowered to sit. (Laughter.) In consequence you can call Bill

68 and debate second reading or completion of second reading of

Bill 68.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 68, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 752 ]

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

IMPROVEMENT ACT

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

now that we're all agreed that we're talking about Bill 68,

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act , this was described when

it was first talked about as the third of the three

particularly important bills that were to be presented in this

session of the Legislature to assist in the development of

agriculture. The other two have been dealt with. The third one

is before us now.

There is some question as to why we need a bill such as this

when we have already legislation passed dealing with the B.C.

Development Corporation. This particular bill is designed to

draw our attention to those industries which are engaged in the

processing or handling of agricultural products in particular.

It is not anticipated that there will be any new organization,

any new structure necessary to handle the work that will be

necessary to serve the purposes of this legislation. Rather the

Department of Agriculture, in considering applications for

loans under this legislation, would be using the staff, the

expertise in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce.

But there will be another consideration, an extra

consideration if you like, and that is some thought will be

given not only to those industries which are going to serve the

general industrial development of the province which will come

into the area of the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), but those in particular

which are important for the developing agricultural industry

and which will tie in with our programme to increase food

production and to spread the increase in food production around

the province — more than has been the case in the past.

The Premier has made it very clear on many occasions on

behalf of the government that as far as the B.C. Development

Corporation is concerned, it will not be the intention of that

corporation to subsidize, in any way at all, industrial

development. That corporation will be concerned with those

industries that can make a meaningful contribution to the

industrial development of the province, but will also stand on

their own feet as individual economic entities.

However, in the case of agriculture, by including this extra consideration,

the idea that an industry, whether or not it is able to stand on its own as

a successful enterprise, its existence may be justified in the fact that it

is making a meaningful contribution to the expanding agricultural industry,

or to the production of some particular foodstuff for which there is a need,

either in the province or outside of the province. It is with that in mind that

we have introduced what is, in a sense, complementary legislation to the B.C.

Development Corporation, but nevertheless legislation that is designed very

definitely to assist in the development of the agricultural industry. With that,

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I want to say that

the official opposition certainly agrees with the good idea,

the very good idea, behind this bill of assisting secondary

manufacturing of farm products. However, I don't know why on

earth the Minister of Agriculture had to take such a perfectly

good idea and bugger it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: He buggered it up under

section 3, where it

says that the government….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is some decorum in the

House, I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's muddled it up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well he's muddled it up then, by allowing the

government to become again partners in these operations. Not

only partners, they can go in and own the whole cotton-picking

outfit. And they can also use this Act, where a person needs

assistance and has a good idea, to blackmail their way into

partnership, and eventually the government could end up owning

all the food-processing plants in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And probably will.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the chairman of our agriculture committee

pats his desk. I want to tell that Member, Mr. Speaker, that if

the government should ever be in the position of owning all the

food-processing plants in British Columbia, the farmers in this

province would be in a sorry state indeed. For that Member to

clap for that process really astounds me, after him travelling

throughout the Province of British Columbia this summer

listening to the farm problems and knowing full well that this

is not the answer.

Now, to give you some idea what can happen to the production

of foodstuffs in a country where the government gets in and

messes the situation up where it's been handled by farmers

doing a good job: A good example is our milk industry. Already

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has predicted a

shortage of milk in the Province of British Columbia. He says

that the shortage of milk is predicated on the fact of the high

cost of feed and the high cost of machinery, and so forth.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the high cost of feed is not

[ Page 753 ]

the reason that so many dairymen are going out of business.

Dairy herds all over the Province of British Columbia are being

sold; they're going out of business. Why? No. I is that they

can no longer have the land that they want to operate in. Bill

42 has caused many dairymen to go out of business.

Another instance that we could talk about, when we're

talking about foodstuffs and the assistance of the government

to assist secondary industry, is the poultry industry. The

government has plans to put a poultry processing plant in the

Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis') riding to process

poultry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where should it be?

MR. PHILLIPS: Where should that poultry processing plant

truly be, Mr. Speaker? It should either be in the Kootenays or

in the South Peace area. (Laughter.)

Well, the Members laugh. But as long as they're the

government and as long as the government through this

section

of this bill can go in and needle their way in and blackmail

their way in to get control of these processing plants, the

government can put them where they want to — not necessarily

where they should be; they can put them where they want to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not parliamentary to

suggest or state, as the Member did, that the government is

blackmailing its way into something. That is definitely

unparliamentary. I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they certainly have the opportunity to

use undue pressure then, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You withdraw the word.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Completely, unequivocally I withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you withdraw from the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: They have the right to exert pressure, undue

pressure, in places to go into this. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the

intent behind this bill is excellent; it's timely and it's

needed. But why does the government always have to want to get

their hands into the action so that they can control? This is

typical of all the legislation this government brings down. I

want to say I am unequivocally opposed to that idea, although I

am in favour of the intent behind the bill.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): It's certainly a pleasure to

stand in support of the principle of this bill. We travelled

around the province, as the Member for South Peace River

mentioned, and it's been reported before in this House that we

found that agriculture in general was in a disastrous

position.

We found areas, such as the Grand Forks area, where half of

the land that had been in agriculture production years ago was

now lying in weeds while the owners were working in industry,

for the Highways department or for a mill — anything but to

return and try to make a living out of the land which they

hadn't been able to do in the past.

Governments for the past 50 to 75 years have always had to

assist agriculture because there's been an insistence on the

part of the consumer that he get cheap food. In order to get

the cheap food, there had to be assistance both federally and

provincially for almost all sections of the agricultural

industry.

We also found areas in the province where the complaint of

the people in the agricultural industry appearing before us

said over and over, in many ways there could be a remunerative

agricultural production if there was a processing plant in

their area.

The reason I thumped my desk when it was suggested that the

government take over the agricultural processing in this

province was because private industry has failed and failed so

miserably in the past to assist these people to put in the

processing plants they want. Every area we went to, the riding

of the Member for South Peace River included, reported that

they could be in an agricultural business if there was the

processing facility necessary to process the product they

produced.

I understand it's been mentioned in this House in the spring

session that there was to be assistance from the government for

a pelletizing plant in Peace River. It looked from our tour up

there and the information I was able to find out that if there

wasn't government assistance, that plant could be many, many

more years in coming — instead of in the very near future.

I hope to see government participation in these plants — in

these processing industries — whether it be for fruit, root

products, grain products, or whatever, to see that the farmer

gets a chance for an outlet for his product because there will

be a decent processing plant in his area. I would certainly

encourage the Minister with all speed to get them

established.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I just want to support this bill — it has to do with the

industry of agriculture — and make one comment on some of the remarks made by

the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

It's been clear to me in my research that the

[ Page 754 ]

farmer in this province, for the past 20 years, has had no

assistance of this type and in this regard. It is clear to me

from my brief experience in my present post that people who are

farmers and want to involve themselves in secondary processing

of agricultural products wish very much for the government to

get involved. And getting involved doesn't mean to allow the

farmers to be left on their own and to their own resources in

their markets and in the processing of their produce.

We are slowly being absorbed by the California producers and

other out-of-jurisdiction producers. We're becoming dangerously

unself-sufficient with respect to our agricultural

products.

We started by bringing in legislation to preserve farmland.

The second step that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) is now taking is to enhance agriculture, make it

viable, make it economic, and make us, as British Columbians,

self-sufficient with respect to agricultural products.

It is my understanding that the government should get

involved in equity positions in these processing plants because

for many years we haven't had the experience in this province

in a great many areas with respect to the processing of

agricultural products. It is incumbent upon us when we invest

the taxpayers' money, either as subsidy or as an investment,

that we have the opportunity to share in the management of the

process. It is not the intention of the government to take

these things over; nothing could be further from the

government's mind. Certainly it is our responsibility to share

in management and in equity and bring about a situation where

the farmer has an opportunity to sell his produce within our

jurisdiction.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support

the principle of this bill. It follows the intent of the other

agricultural bills. I'm not quite as sure as the Minister was

that this was necessary when we have the same intent in the

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act .

In supporting the principle of this bill, I have to

recognize that the Minister has put in some ballpark figures

whereby the total of money loaned should not exceed $20

million, and I think that's commendable.

I have to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that our main concern

in the bill is with

section 3 where, despite the assurances of

the Member and the Minister who has just spoken that it is not

the intention of government to take over processing

enterprises, we in this party believe very strongly that

government should not be increasingly designing its legislation

to give it the power to take over industries.

We had a bill introduced the other day in the petroleum and mining industry

which does exactly that — provide complete and total power to take over that

particular industry. We have here, in

section 3, the power to invest in the

agricultural enterprises or to purchase an interest in the agricultural enterprise.

Now we feel that as long as government were not to acquire a

majority position in such an enterprise, this might be

acceptable. But the danger inherent in having government as a

partner in business or industry is something which gives us on

this side of the House a great deal of concern. Because as I

have said many times in this House in this session, Mr.

Speaker, the minute government becomes a business partner, it

is in a very different position from any other business partner

simply because of its unique position as government.

When other difficulties may or may not arise in these

industries or businesses, particularly in the labour-relations

field, the government is in a unique position to use power

which is not available to any other partner or individual in

business. We're very concerned not only that this bill could

allow that to happen but, worse still, that

section 3 could

quite easily permit the government to gain complete and total

control of the industry and the processing plants that it's

designed to assist.

It's the simple division of philosophy between this side of

the House and that side of the House. It is the function of

government to create economic advantages to the private sector,

whether it be in agriculture or production of secondary goods

or otherwise. It's not our feeling that government should put

itself in the position of completely controlling this sector of

the economy or any other sector presently in private hands.

We don't believe that this government or any other

government has been wildly successful in proving that it can do

a better job than private enterprise. The Member for Kamloops

(Mr. G.H. Anderson), who was so jubilant about the power which

would enable this government to take over the processing

plants, claims that private enterprise has failed. I don't

think it follows, Mr. Speaker, that because it has failed this

bill will ensure that the government will succeed. I think it

is much more rational to suggest that, at this stage in time,

assistance such as this bill offers should be restricted to the

provision of loans which the government can provide, and, under

section 4, to taking security for the loans and guarantees.

But the biggest danger in this bill unquestionably lies in

section 3. While we strongly support the principle of the bill

which is well outlined, as the Minister pointed out, in

section

2, we will be introducing amendments to remove what to us is a

very serious obstacle to wholehearted support of this bill.

In principle, it is the kind of measure which from all sides of the House we

have heard is necessary. What we suggest is not necessary is the kind of power

section 3 which could quite readily be used to give the government complete

control over the industry.

[ Page

755 ]

We oppose this and always will.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I would just like

to support what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has said. He had a meeting, along

with the Minister of Agriculture, with just one of many people

in my riding who are asking for help and for us to take an

equity position in their industry. In this case it was

Clappison Packers, the only hog processor in British Columbia

and one of the larger independent packing houses in British

Columbia. This person, who unfortunately has not set up some

kind of a system for people to take an equity position and a

stronger management position in his company, is asking for us

to take some leadership, to work out some kind of a management

arrangement with him and a very strong equity position.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce has made it very clear

that we have certain requirements if we ever enter into that.

We must have studies on the market feasibility of the product.

In this case we're talking about getting beyond simply cutting

the animal in half, cleaning it and, in a rather raw-material

state, sending out the product as sides of meat. We'd like to

get into bacons, hams and sausages in a much higher, better

revenue product. The Minister insists that we have market

feasibility studies, that we get proper management analysis,

that we have some idea of the cash flow of any venture before

we ever risk any of this $20 million of the people's money

we're talking about here.

I just want to remind you that there are people; I mentioned

Clappison Packers as an illustration. This 200-hog-per-day

packing plant down in Maple Ridge is one of many, many places

in B.C. that simply wants to have some help, some

encouragement, both equity and management-wise, and would like

us to work with them. Whether we make a decision to join Mr.

Clappison, I don't know. It's really not my priority and there

are many, many questions to be asked.

But I think it should be known that there was neglect. My

predecessor was a Social Crediter and even Mr. Clappison, I'm

told, is a Social Crediter. There was nothing done for people

like this — very little encouragement. Only on the eve of the

provincial election did the previous Premier say that there

would be small-interest loans for agriculture-producing

industries.

So let's support the bill. I'd like to see a great deal more

done — for instance, more processing in this particular form of

agriculture — before more and more of the industry goes to

Edmonton and to other parts of Alberta. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We welcome this bill

as well, and we welcome it doubly because it includes in some of its later sections

some of the protections which have been heretofore missing in earlier legislation

introduced by this Minister which is giving him extensive powers to deal with

the expenditure of moneys. I think that the wisdom of the argument to be made

in those bills and the need for the restrictions that we find in this bill are

clearly evidenced by statements made by the Minister following the introduction

of this legislation a few days ago.

I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Dewdney has said and I

think that it is important to recall to the Minister that the

Member for Dewdney spoke of the risks involved when moving into

the area of secondary industry. I trust the Member for Dewdney

will recognize the import of what the Minister said to the

press following the introduction of this bill; he said the Act

would be dealt with in conjunction with the B.C. Development

Corporation. He added that it was being brought in separately

from the B.C. Development Corporation because — and these are

the Minister's words as quoted by the press: "In the case of

agriculture, we're prepared to go further than a reasonable

business venture."

I hope, when the Minister closes the debate, that he will

remove from my mind the concern which those words raise. Are we

to understand, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister, that because

we're moving into the area of processing, storing, handling or

transporting of an agricultural product — in other words, one

step removed from the farm — that we must approach the decision

as to whether or not a loan will be made or, indeed, Mr.

Speaker, whether a grant will be made…. And I point out to

you that there is power in this legislation for making grants

of up to $1 million in any one year; a grant, under

section 9,

of $1 million in any fiscal year. That's a very extensive power

of granting funds.

A grant, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, is one which is a

direct application of funds without any obligation to repay. I

would hate to think that we're moving into the age in this

province where we would perhaps take a risk, a flyer on a risky

business venture, one which might not pass the scrutiny of the

B.C. Development Corporation.

As I read through the Act I was pleased to note that there

were several sections which gave the power to the Minister

similar to that which is exercised by many of our leading

financial institutions. In particular, the Industrial

Development Bank has powers similar to those which are given to

the Minister to ensure that the moneys are being appropriately

applied and that the conduct of the affairs of the venture to

which the government may make a loan or a grant are carried out

properly and that the object of making the grant is likely to

be fulfilled.

[ Page 756 ]

I welcome those, but I am disturbed at the attitude

apparently indicated in the Minister's remarks. I would hope

that he would make some additional comment which would assure

the Members of this House and the people of this province that

we're not going to take any risky flyers.

In many of these small processing operations, there is

serious risk of loss. It will be scant satisfaction to the

government, it will be scant satisfaction to the farming

community if, because proper care was not taken at the outset,

a food-processing industry was started and allowed to fail

because of inadequate investment capital from the private

sector to go along with the investment or loan made by the

government.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if he would indicate to

the House the need in this legislation to extend the lending

power and the granting power back into the food production

area. In other words, as I read the legislation the farm itself

may also be the benefactor of this legislation.

As you read the title, and from the remarks of the Minister

when it was introduced, you would think that this applied only

to those secondary steps, once at least removed from the farm.

But there are words in the statute which indicate that the farm

itself may be included, and the farmer may be included as the

one who can apply for loans or for grants.

There are two sections — one, the definition of agricultural

industry, and the

section specifying the purposes and objects

of this legislation — which are broad enough to include the

farmer himself.

Yes, we support the bill. It contains, we think, a

reasonable safeguard in the hands of the Minister. But since

this government has decided to go into the field of investing

wholly, or in part, in undertakings which heretofore have been

considered to be solely within the realm of the private sector,

I would like to know from the Minister why he has not felt it

necessary to assemble in his department the kind of skills that

obviously are being assembled — we hope are being assembled — with respect to the B.C. Development Corporation.

I know the Minister has in the reorganization of his

department set up an economic division, and at the last report

that I saw, that particular division was still without a head.

I would like to know whether or not that senior and important

position in his department has been filled or will likely be

filled, and whether the economic branch of the Department of

Agriculture will play a particular role in the administration

of the Minister's responsibilities under this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who isn't in

his seat right now, raised a question about the government

applying undue pressure to persuade people that they should

allow the government to take an equity position in enterprises

such as are envisioned in this legislation.

I know there has been discussion with some enterprises, with

some potential enterprises, in anticipation of this

legislation. Some discussion has been going on for some months,

as a matter of fact. I certainly know of no undue pressure on

the part of government. I know of no pressure. As a matter of

fact, the situation has been just the opposite.

There has, indeed, been pressure from the farmers themselves

and the people who are interested in establishing or expanding

agricultural industries. There has been, if not pressure, at

least persuasion from those areas for the government to enter

in on some sort of an equity basis, not controlling, but some

sort of an equity basis.

If he has any indication at all, any knowledge of any

instance where the government or any of its staff has been

exerting pressure on anyone — if there has been any information

of any kind that he has where the government has been exerting

any pressure or any influence to try to persuade people that

they should allow the government — he called it "undue"

pressure, I say even if there has been any persuasion — I'd

very much like to be aware of those instances.

On the case of the poultry processing plant which he

predicts will go into the Shuswap riding — and I note the Hon.

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was interested in this — I think

there has been no suggestion from the government benches as to

exactly where it would be located. If he seriously suggests

that it should be in the Peace River, then I think we should

all be thankful that he is not in a position to make this sort

of a decision. Because certainly if a plant such as that is

going to do any service to the agricultural industry then it

should be in a place where there is some product for the plant

to work with, or in a place where there is likely to be a

sufficient volume for it to work with. I think the day when a

plant such as that would be justified in the Peace River is

quite far distant.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised the same

concern about equity. Is it necessary…? Now he's out. I'll

perhaps leave that just in case he comes back in.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams)

acknowledges that this particular legislation does limit the

amount of money available and is pleased that it does. I say

again, as I said yesterday, I believe, in debating another

bill, in this particular instance it is quite appropriate that

the amount should be set. There is no reason at all why it

shouldn't be set. It is appropriate that it should be set; and

so it is in this legislation. In the other case it

[ Page 757 ]

was not so appropriate and not so practical to put an amount

in.

The remarks that he quoted — remarks that I made — that we

would go further than reasonable business ventures, that we

would consider, at least, going further than reasonable

business ventures: yes, those words were certainly, if not a

complete quote, a correct quote, and certainly the way I feel

about this particular legislation.

I think to explain that — I did, perhaps briefly, in my

opening remarks in second reading — there are instances where a

particular agricultural industry might be developed, might be

forward-thinking, if you like. And I'd like to refer for a

moment, if I may, to the first dehydrated alfalfa plant in the

province, which for the Province of British Columbia is

breaking new ground. They've been very slow to select the

equipment for this because new equipment is being developed

almost monthly. So it's a matter of finding the equipment that

is best suited to the needs of our province and even to the

different needs of our province.

The conditions, for example, in the Peace River area where

the first plant is being established are markedly different

from the conditions that exist in the Interior or the southern

part of the province. So there are these extra problems.

The plant in the Peace River might very well be the first of

several in the Peace River area. However, with respect to the

first one, it might be that there are extra costs — extra

start-up costs, that would make one venture all on its own

uneconomic or economic at least for a time until it becomes

acceptable — both the product that it is producing and the

product that is going into the plant. All these things have to

be proven.

So in a case like that where the Department of Agriculture

is convinced that this plant is a worthwhile venture, that it

can make a significant contribution to agriculture — in a

situation like that we might very well go beyond what a sound

business venture might be in the relatively short-term period.

But in our belief, if you like, that it is going to have a

long-range benefit and that successive plants of that

particular kind could be established, would be established in

the province, and that in total even in a longer period of

time, and we can look at it in a longer period of time and look

at it in a larger picture than the individuals in that area

could look at it, in total it is something that would be

definitely economic.

As far as the government sharing in it — this is something

that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised….

Well, I'll just deal with the other question he raised about

assembling the skills. I think I tried to explain this too.

We wouldn't want to duplicate the skills that ~re available

in the Department of Industrial Development. What we are thinking of is complementing them.

While the Department of Industrial Development did, for

example, examine the proposal made by the people who were

sponsoring South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. — that was examined

by the Department of Industrial Development. They came to the

conclusion that economically it was sound, but just barely, and depending upon all of the conditions, working out pretty

well ideal. So a judgment then had to be made. Should this go

ahead, or shouldn't it go ahead? There was, if you like, a bit

of a gamble.

Again I am emphasizing a gamble in particular, because it

was the first one in B.C., the first one in that area, because

there was no experience with that type of product in the

province, and no experience with people supplying that

particular kind of plant.

So in that case we would not want to duplicate the skills

available in the Department of Industrial Development, but we

would want to add something to the consideration.

We would want to add some thought to the future of the

development of agriculture in the province and throw that into

the balance, if you like, and let that tip the balance in

favour of going ahead with the project.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay did raise some questions: the

necessity of government involvement. Why are we so interested

in controlling or in purchasing an interest? The Hon. Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk)

gave reasons for that.

As long as the government is involved then the government

has some responsibility to protect the investment that the

taxpayers are making in that plant.

Even more important: it is sometimes hard to persuade

producers that they should get together cooperatively to do

something that is different. Some of them have had their

fingers burned in cooperatives of one kind or another in the

past, and they are just a little bit hesitant, perhaps more

than a little bit hesitant. When the government comes along and

says, "Well, we think this is a good idea. Go ahead, fellows,

" They say, "That's all very well for you. You're not

putting anything into it. You tell us to go ahead, but you're

not putting anything in. We're the ones who stand to lose if it

doesn't work."

So it is with a view to encouraging people in situations

like that, of encouraging them to go ahead, and, if you like,

in a way putting our money where our mouths are, and saying

that we think this is a good venture; we're prepared to enter

it with you in a sort of a partnership basis to get it going.

Once we have proven it is a reasonable enterprise, once you

have shown that you can stand on your own feet, then the

government will be only too happy to get out of it.

[ Page 758 ]

We have neither the staff nor the interest in becoming

involved in many relatively small industrial enterprises, even

though they be agriculture-oriented. In many relatively small

industrial enterprises all over the province we have neither

the staff nor the interest. We want to encourage these to get

established. We want to help them to get established and if

this encouragement and help takes the form of government

participation in the enterprise, on a relatively short-term

basis, then we are prepared to do that.

There are other reasons, other situations, where we might

want to do something like that and some of this has been

mentioned. But we have had, goodness knows, too much experience

in this province of small processing industries being purchased

by foreign corporations with a view to shutting them down and

then getting the market for that produce. They buy up canneries

and almost immediately close the canneries, with a result not

only of the labour loss in that area, but also a loss of

production in that area because we then find that the loss of

food production is made up by imports from those canneries from

abroad.

Under this legislation we would be also able to act to

prevent things like that happening, with a view to encouraging

the distribution of production around the province. There would

be the possibility of establishing a broiler-producing

industry, for example, in the Interior. But it just wouldn't be

practical to do so unless there was some assurance in the minds

of those producers that there was going to be a processing

plant.

In the event that there was no one ready to start it and in

the event that the producers locally might be prepared to get

in but are not enough in themselves to establish such a plant,

then we want to be willing to back up our intention to spread

that particular industry, broiler production, around the

province to make it financially possible for it to happen by

saying that we are determined that there will be a

poultry-processing plant available close enough to the

production area so that the product can be processed.

So with a view again to doing that, we feel it is necessary,

in some circumstances, that there would be government

involvement. This is not going to be an extremely important

part of the work of what is planned in this legislation, but we

do feel that it is necessary to do what we want to do to have

the authority in this legislation to take these actions. I now

move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 68 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 71.

WEED CONTROL ACT

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The purpose of this Act is to replace the previous

Noxious Weeds Act — replacing it, we hope, in a more workable and more practical

form. In this legislation we are proposing that the government of the province

will be prepared to enter into agreements with municipalities — that will include

village municipalities and it could include regional districts — to set up weed

advisory committees to allow them, if they choose, to appoint inspectors and,

if they like, weed control officers, to carry out the intention of this Act.

Under this legislation it will be more practical than was

previously the case for municipalities themselves, in the

widest definition of the word, to prepare lists of noxious

weeks that are of immediate concern in their own particular

district. Of course, this would vary markedly from one district

to another. The government of the province is prepared to

assist in financing weed control in these areas — in some

areas, perhaps, to do the whole job.

There might be other areas where the municipalities — again

using the broadest sense of the word — themselves might feel

that the programme is not serving the needs of the local area

to the extent that they would like to see them served and might

want to complement the work that the Department of Agriculture

is doing.

However, there would be this cooperation and, under this

legislation, more opportunity for cooperation than there has

been in the past. When the weeds are controlled, the cost of

this controlling could be invoiced; could be charged against

the occupier of the land, whoever the occupier might be; could

be recovered, if necessary, by setting this out on the tax roll

under the Municipal Act and collected as are taxes in arrears

generally.

Of course, it includes the provision that the municipalities

themselves may be the occupier of land under certain

circumstances; the Department of Highways might be the

occupier. It also includes the provision that certain areas

within weed-control areas might be exempted from the provisions

of this Act, as the case may be, depending again upon

consultation with the local areas concerned.

Really, the intent is that in this legislation we would be

consulting more with the local areas, accepting more

suggestions from them as to the working of this legislation,

hoping that we will reduce the tremendous losses that we

presently incur from noxious weeds — hoping that we can control

these at least and eventually reduce these losses and

eventually increase food production by this method

[ Page 759 ]

along with all the other methods we are considering.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say that I agree with the Minister's

remarks in setting up this bill. It certainly is needed. But I

want to warn the Minister that, in the execution of this bill

and bringing about the results that he desires and the results

that a lot of the ranchers desire and a lot of the farmers

desire, he is going to run headlong into problems with some of

the environmentalists.

I think that maybe meetings are going to be required with

these people so that you can sit down with persons from the

Department of Agriculture, with persons from the environmental

groups and with some of the farmers and ranchers and landowners

involved, and do some real soul-searching with regard to the

use of certain herbicides. It is going to be necessary. If we

are going to control certain of these weeds, we are going to

have to use some of these herbicides, and they are going to

have some obnoxious side effects. You can't have it both

ways.

Right now the weeds are taking over — right? So, as I say,

the Minister is going to have to get together to form groups in

the area concerned and sit down in a sane and sensible

conversation and discuss what the side effects are going to be

and what the effects will be if the weeds aren't controlled.

travelling about last summer, for instance, we learned of the

invasion of the knapweed up in the Kootenays and the Kamloops

area.

So, as I say, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, you are going to

have a great deal of difficulty in bringing about the results

that you want to bring about in enacting this piece of

legislation. You know yourself that spraying along highways has

its advantages and it has its disadvantages. Who is going to

make the decisions? Is it going to be the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in the final analysis, or are

you going to form a committee to work with environmental groups

and those people involved?

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in closing the debate, will

give me some idea of how he intends to solve this problem. I hope that

he will make the way clear for the scientists to get to work again and

to come up with some of the chemicals that we are going to have to use.

Maybe, if the proper incentive is there and they know that

they are going to be able to sell their product once it is

developed, they will put a little more research into it and get

a more refined product that might not have as many bad side

effects. I hope the Minister will give me some idea of how he

intends to do this, because you just don't control weeds by

ploughing them under the ground.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often I get a chance

to agree with the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips). I think it's probably

the first time since I've been in this House. I've ruined his reputation.

I think that this particular part of the bill bears serious

consideration. I'm very much concerned that, the way the bill

is laid out now, it has not explained how we are going to look

after the environmental problems, and the use of herbicides and

pesticides in general.

It puts a lot of control in the hands of the local

community. Some communities may bring in rigid controls and

some may not, so we might differ from one area to the other. I

think that this particular aspect of weed control should be

very carefully controlled from the provincial level in

conjunction with environmental people. I don't think it should

be just left up to people in the Department of Agriculture.

In my experience in agriculture, when I was taking soil

science at the university, I found that most of the people

there in weed control and in soil science had not been too

concerned with the side effects of the herbicides and

pesticides that were being used.

Much of the research money that came into the university,

and many of the people there…some money came from the

chemical companies and the fertilizer companies and so on. So

in a way we have become somewhat biased in our training. I went

through this training myself, and it was a long time before I

started to look at it and think that maybe there was some fault

with the types of fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides we

were using.

I think it should bear very careful study when we determine

how we are going to control the weeds. I think the terms of

reference that are set up, that the weeds should be controlled,

are good. But control of how we're going to control them, what

kind of chemicals we're going to use, whether we can indeed get

our scientists to develop chemicals, as the Hon. Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) suggested we might be able to

do — if we can get our scientists to develop chemicals that

wouldn't be harmful — I think that would be great.

I think that we should start these wheels in motion now and

that we have to have that kind of consultation so that we don't

embark upon a programme in one area that's going to conflict

with another — and where you find one group making it a little

more difficult for the farmers to operate because they can't

use sprays, and another group allowed to use some and another

municipality allowing them to use everything.

We had a spraying problem in my own riding a year ago. We

more or less banned spraying in one

section of the community

which is largely residential — sprays such as 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T

and so on — but we are permitting them to be used at the

present time in the agricultural zone, pending studies that

the

[ Page 760 ]

provincial government has been making in their hearings on

pesticides this year.

But I don't think that you could allow communities like that

to have dividing lines in them where you've got one

agricultural community using them and one not. So we must have

province-wide control of pesticides and herbicides. I welcome

the suggestion by the Hon. Member for South Peace that we

should have some environmental people in on this decision that

will be made when the Department of Agriculture sets up the

means under this bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a delightful

display of unanimity on this subject today. When one considers

what the Minister has said concerning the cost to the

agricultural community of our failures to control noxious weeds — something in the neighbourhood of $72 million to $75 million

a year: that is the cost to our total community from allowing

weeds to go uncontrolled. In addition, a part of that $75

million cost is a $3 million health cost.

This should be enough, I think, to encourage the government

to act in a manner that the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) and the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) have

suggested. That is, by really getting together with the

environmentalists, with the Department of Health, with the

research scientists who were involved in attempting to improve

herbicides and pesticides, and bringing them together with the

agriculturalists so that everyone begins to recognize the

extent of the problem of controlling weeds — and at the same

time insects — as well as the implications which it has for

human existence.

I think for too long we have gone about in our separate

compartments, separate ways, approaching the problem from our

own point of view. We've had too many examples of that in this

province in the past, and even in the past year. The Hon.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) — and I don't criticize him

for the decision he made — made a decision that they want to

stop destroying the weeds along the rights-of-way of highways.

This was done, I'm sure, at the urging of the Department of

Health, and that's understandable.

But it just happened, Mr. Speaker, that this decision was

made while the agricultural committee was on its tours, and we

got an immediate negative reaction from the farming

communities, particularly the ranchers who were able to take us

out on to the highways and show us the consequences of failing

to carry out a weed-control programme within those highway

rights-of-way.

At the same time we have had in the past in this province, through the Crown

corporations, the most irresponsible actions taken by B.C. Hydro and by the

B.C. Railway with respect to the control of weeds along the rights-of-way of

power transmission lines and the railway. Now B.C. Hydro appears to have learned

its lesson and is now looking more to the environmental impact of some of the

practices that it carried out. And I hope that the B.C. Rail can be encouraged

to do the same — not by the use or overuse of chemical sprays, but by approaching

the weed control along the right-of-way of the railway by the use of workmen

and by return to the

section approach of looking after the right-of-way.

I think we can make a real start if we get together with our

Crown corporations, with the several departments of government

who all have an interest in this particular problem and in its

solutions, and do something once and for all on a

concerted-effort basis.

We can hardly accept any longer the suggestion that the cost

is too great. As the Minister pointed out, and I repeat again,

the cost in agriculture alone is $75 million a year. Mr.

Speaker, a very small part of $75 million a year applied to

research and to improving the methods of weed control would

repay us handsomely.

At the same time there is an emerging body of opinion as to

the implications which will befall the agricultural committee

and all of the food production areas if we stop altogether the

use of chemical sprays or fail to find some better method of

controlling insects. Now that the government, through the Land

Commission Act , has established agricultural reserves, we must

at the same time move forward at this particular time to ensure

that the lands placed in those reserves do not become useless

to agriculture because we fail to control things such as

noxious weeds.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want

to make just a very few brief remarks on this bill. It is

evident that all parties in the House will support it.

I am disappointed, as evidently a number of other Members,

are, that there is not an appropriate attitude in this bill

toward noxious sprays, There's no indication that people with

some sensitivity to the environment are to be appointed to

these councils and to have some say in what is appropriate to

use in the way of a noxious weed control agent in any given

circumstance.

But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned that an

opportunity wasn't taken with this particular Act to bring

under control the greatest environmental offenders that we

have. These are governments. I've had occasion, perhaps more

than most Members of the Legislature, to travel the province in

the years when I was leader of the Liberal Party, and I was

continually struck by the insanity and intransigence of

governments and Crown corporations.

When it comes to noxious chemicals and sprays, governments

and their agencies are the offenders. We might as well start

right at the top with the federal

[ Page 761 ]

government where, in conjunction with the United States

government, our Canadian government sprays the Canada-U.S.

border with noxious chemicals.

It really isn't to kill weeds; it's to make a nice, big bare

stripe down the 49th parallel. You can go along the 49th

parallel in some of the more remote areas of British Columbia

and find empty cans of poisonous chemicals, healthy trees of

last year with dead leaves on them. That isn't to control

noxious weeds; it's to make a nice, pretty, broad stripe down

the centre of the 49th parallel.

Then you can go to the power line rights-of-way of B.C.

Hydro. Tremendous amounts of offensive, toxic chemicals are

poured along those rights-of-way, not to control weeds but

trees and other healthy and desirable foliage, for a nice, big,

bare stripe along where the power lines happen to run so that

jeeps can go along and it's easy to maintain the line. But

these chemicals, unfortunately, can spread from the area that

has been sprayed into the drinking water, into the fishing

streams and away from the right-of-way. The Crown corporation

wants to have a pretty, clean stripe running through the middle

of the countryside.

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

mentioned how the B.C. Railway likes to keep the ties clean,

not to have any bushes or weeds growing there, so they use huge

amounts of noxious chemicals. They always say it's keeping

foliage of any kind down. So you use chemicals that will

destroy healthy and desirable foliage.

Then you come to the provincial government itself and its

Department of Highways where the same thing is done along the

edges of the road.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): No, no.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to individual

environmentalists, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) mentioned, to try and protect their fishing streams

or their source of water supply or their own healthy foliage,

they find themselves most helpless against federal governments,

provincial governments and Crown corporations. Where is the

average person in British Columbia to turn to have his

environment improved? Well, he has to turn to governments

themselves, and when they pass legislation that seems to

encourage, as this one might, the killing of weeds in any

fashion that seems expedient, gives no indication of its desire

to measure the environmental impact of this, and, above all,

gives no indication of a desire to curb the abuses that

governments have heaped on the citizens in the past, then you

can't blame them for being cynical and militant.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, before this bill becomes law, the Minister of Agriculture

will be able to bring in some amendments. Perhaps we can suggest some to him

that would give the average citizen an idea that his government, at least, and

that Minister has a little sense of proportion about all of this and that the

environment is going to have a higher place in the standing of the government

order of things than it has in the past.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like to participate

briefly in this debate. In speaking to the bill, which is the

Weed Control Act , it does occur to me that there's always a

conflict of interest between those people who would like to

control all weeds by whatever form of herbicide is available

and those people who, for environmental reasons, protest

greatly the use of herbicides of any kind, I know that in the

enactment of this bill and in the actual field application of

it, the Minister is going to find times when his department

will be pressured by many different groups with many opposing

opinions.

To a farmer, the fact that his field is infested with weeds

is something undesirable and, particularly to a farmer, if his

fields are infested as a result of lack of attention to public

rights-of-way, to highways, to power lines and to neighbouring

property which may be Crown land, it becomes a very frustrating

matter. In that respect I would suggest to the Minister that he

will have to proceed most cautiously when allocating on a pro

rata basis, or whatever basis is decided, the expense of

treating and controlling weeds. There is nothing that irritates

a farmer more than to be charged for the control of weeds which

came about as a result of poor farming practices on the land

adjacent to him or as a result of Crown land infested with

weeds, be it road allowances, rights-of-way or whatever.

Many of the herbicides that we have used in the past we have

found to be ecologically unsafe, if we have respect for the

wildlife in the area, the birds and the plants and so on. So I

do think that in setting up this particular bill in his

department, the first thing the Minister should really give

consideration to is the establishment of priorities with

respect to weed control. By that I mean simply this: is the

production of food the No. I priority? If that is to be the

case, then the type of herbicides that we would use will either

be those that are known to us today or others that have not yet

been invented. If it is the expert opinion of people who are

qualified and knowledgeable in the field of herbicides that

certain chemicals are dangerous and too volatile, then we

should be putting money into research to find chemicals that we

can use.

Good farmers tell me that the best control of weeds is good

farming practices. If you farm properly you do not have too

great a problem with weeds. I can recall not too many years ago

that many farms in the Peace River country were considered to

be weed free and, as a result of that, they gained

worldwide

[ Page 762 ]

recognition for growing legume crops because of the fact

that very few noxious weeds infested those fields.

I'm sorry to say that that is not the case today. The weed

infestation of the Peace River country is probably as great as

any part of the Province of British Columbia. Part of it is a

result of poor farming practices, but a greater part, I

believe, is the result of poor housekeeping by departments of

the government.

So if the production of food is a No. I priority, we must

decide what type of herbicides farmers will be permitted to use

and, in fact, find a method of prorating the costs of

controlling weeds if it must be done by the officers under the

jurisdiction of this department. Certainly a farmer who has a

reputation for weed-free farms and clean land should not be

penalized because some of his neighbours or even the Crown

itself were not nearly as particular.

The other area that we become involved in, of course, with

the use of herbicides on a wide scale is the protection of

wildlife and plant life. We can't continue to keep our road

allowances clear of weeds and small brush, and our

rights-of-way for B.C. Hydro clear of weeds and brush without

using some form of herbicide.

Yet at the same time we create a problem, which the Minister

is well aware of, and that is that we destroy birds, we destroy

small plants and small animals with the herbicide that has been

used in the past. Something must be decided if that is to be a

priority. The Minister must determine what priority that will

hold in the whole scheme of weed control.

The third area I would suggest to the Minister is

beautification, because after all this is part and parcel of a

weed-control programme. It is hoped that the weeds can be

replaced with plant life that is more pleasing to the eye and

more beneficial from an aesthetic point of view than the weeds

themselves.

I can't help but echo the sentiments of the Member who

preceded me in this debate with respect to the greatest

offender when it comes to the proliferation of weeds throughout

the country, and that has got to be, without a doubt, the Crown

itself, be it through its own agencies or through Crown land

that is just not looked after. These areas become infested with

weeds and as a result go to seed and are broadcast by the wind

and end up miles and miles away infesting many acres of prime

farmland and municipalities.

I can give you an example of the problem we have now with

the dandelion in northern B.C. It's a weed that grows very

prolifically and yet because it has not been kept under

control, it has completely inundated hundreds and hundreds of

acres of what should be good pasture land. There must be a way

to control that, and control it on an inexpensive basis.

One of the great reasons we have that proliferation of that particular variety

of weed is the fact that road allowances and rights-of-way for power utilities,

and so on, have not been kept in shape and weeds on Crown land have been allowed

to go to seed. So government weeds have gone to seed, Mr. Minister.

I would hope in this extremely complex problem, because I

recognize — as the Minister must — that you do have conflicting

forces when you try to control weed infestation in the

province, that the Minister would establish priorities as to

what the thrust of the programme will really be. I'm glad to

see the Minister attempt to control the situation because it is

a problem throughout all of British Columbia. I would hope that

in the allocation of cost he will take due consideration for

those people whose property may be infested through no fault of

their own.

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

Speaker, to say a few words for the weeds. I think they've

received pretty shoddy treatment on behalf of all of the

Members of the House this afternoon.

I want to make that point because the government is patently

advertising its lack of knowledge, and its uncertainty, and its

hesitation in this legislation, because in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't even say and apparently doesn't even know

what a weed is because they're not defined.

Yet the government gives itself power to destroy weeds or

control weeds, or have committees dealing with them, or

agreements concerning them. But then we come to a blank wall

and they only say that the cabinet shall designate what a

noxious weed is.

So, we have the farm assurance Act by regulation; we've got

housing by regulation; we've got consumerism and mining by

regulation and petroleum by regulation. Now we're going to have

weeds by regulation. And the only certainty is that regulations

in this province are growing like weeds and there's going to be

no end to it.

I suppose in a fit of pique the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) could designate some of the noisier Members

of the opposition as noxious weeds and then put them under

these great controls that you have here.

So I say for the unnamed and unknown weeds in the province…. And we must remember that in one point in time, things

such as corn and potatoes and hops and spinach — the Member

over here was talking about dandelions which certainly have a

rather interesting and jolly secondary use — all of these

things at one time were considered weeds. So I say for the

unnamed weeds, near weeds and some borderline vegetables who

might be indeed trembling in their roots, that the very first

thing that the government should do is start off in this

statute with a basic definition of what is — not leave it all

up to the weed wisdom or lack thereof of the cabinet. But

[ Page 763 ]

if you do, Mr. Minister, I will assure you of one thing,

that you will be judged by your weeds. (Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, the topic has been canvassed quite

well, but I thought I would like to throw in a few comments in

regard to the control and how difficult it's going to be for

the Minister and for the Crown to control these weeds.

The area where I live, the Regional District of

Columbia-Shuswap, extends for 200 miles and it's very, very

sparsely populated. I think for that regional district to take

on the control of any noxious weed would be almost

prohibitive.

The Members from both sides of the House have stated that

they feel the Crown has been one of the worst offenders. I'll

have to say that this is so in my riding.

Highway department: many roads they don't get around for two

or three years to cut with the mower or to spray or take any

other type of action to do away with the weeds.

The CPR has a right-of-way right through my property and in

the 10 years I've lived there they have never once controlled

the weeds in that area.

I can just see nothing but problems when we come to the

enforcement stage. I think that the Crown is going to find

itself in many, many embarrassing situations in the future when

they try to enforce regulations on a property owner and then

they have property that's nearby that isn't being controlled. I

just hope that the Minister has some answers in regard to how

this is going to be accomplished because I can see nothing but

problems in this regard in the future.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I too am concerned about some of the

powers this Act is going to give to committees of a given

council in the province to carry out the control of weeds. I

don't think that a large

section of our population is aware of

the kinds of dangers inherent in the use of some of these

chemicals. I think that committees of councils certainly

wouldn't have the background information necessary in order to

determine what kinds of solutions they could bring forward to

the control of weeds in their given area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's my feeling that there just hasn't been

enough research done to determine what are the long-range

effects of the use of chemicals such as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and a

whole list of chemicals that are currently being used.

When we have a committee set up by a council to deal with this problem, they

will of course seek out information in order to inform themselves about the

various kinds of chemicals that are available and what dangers might be inherent

in them. Now, the source of information which is most readily available about

the various chemicals which are used is available through the manufacturers

of the chemical itself. This is where they're going to get their information

from.

There are booklets put out by all these chemical companies

assuring us that these chemicals are safe, that they are

effective, and that it is that chemical that those committees

should be using. This worries me, and I think we must use

caution here in assigning to these committees the powers to

determine how the weeds in their particular area should be

controlled.

I would encourage the Minister and his department to get

involved in research to determine how these weeds can be

controlled without the use of poisonous chemicals.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I too would

like to speak very briefly on this, although I represent a

riding which has very few weeds and those that are there are

controlled in the old-fashioned method, that is picking them

out by hand.

I too am very concerned, really, about the fact that this

bill has not outlined how the weeds are going to be controlled

and the number of statements that have been made about the use

of chemicals. I'm of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a committee

which consists of a councilor, a ratepayer and a member of the

Department of Agriculture is just not good enough in terms of

making decisions about using chemicals, I would like to suggest to the Minister that, if possible,

two amendments be done before the bill goes into third reading.

One of them has to do with the business of making a very broad

statement about the use of chemicals in the control of noxious

weeds. What we have learned from experience is that sometimes

the control is more noxious than the weeds themselves, and that

they actually do more damage than weeds do.

Now I recognize that in most instances weeds do have to be

controlled, but I would very much like to see a situation

whereby some consultation is done with the Health department

before any of these chemicals are used, and that the Health

department have the power to veto, if necessary, the use of the

chemical chosen to control the weeds. I'm concerned about human

beings in that respect.

Environmentalists should also be involved and have some kind

of input into decisions about the use of chemicals, in terms of

destroying not just the weeds, but the other plants and animals

who have to share this planet with us.

So I'm going to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, although I

am very uncomfortable with it, and I certainly hope….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm speaking in support of the bill that I

hope it will be after it's been amended —

[ Page 764 ]

with the two recommendations that I'm making to the

Minister.

MR. WALLACE: I will be very brief. I think we support the

bill in principle, but we are also very concerned at the lack

of detail and the general broad authority given to the cabinet

to decide what is a noxious weed and to write regulations which

the cabinet, in its wisdom — possibly well-intentioned wisdom — might well be misdirected, or ill-informed on a subject such as

this. We think there's real danger, in passing a bill of this

nature, in giving that much authority for the matter to be

dealt with by regulation.

I missed the earlier part of the debate and I don't know

whether comment has been made on the hearings which the

Minister of Health set up on the use of pesticides and

herbicides. I would think that somewhere included in this bill

there should be some clear-cut authority given to the Minister,

or some clear-cut limitation of his powers, in the use of the

methods which might be recommended by regulation to control the

weeds, particularly in relation to some of the chemicals which

the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned.

There is no question that our knowledge of the far-reaching

effects of some of these chemicals is incomplete. It's somewhat

like the nature of wondering how bad the radiation from nuclear

waste might be in a power plant; you get as many opinions as

there are stars in the sky. I think, in relation to these

chemicals, that there is indeed a need for a great deal of

research. Until we have that research done I think it's very

dangerous to leave this much power in the hands of cabinet. I'm

particularly referring to

section 5.

I remember well, when I served as an alderman in Oak Bay,

that now and then we would have problems with this one

homeowner creating a problem. The problem was to decide what

power council had to deal with it. Therefore, I commend in

principle the idea that this bill gives municipalities some

clear-cut authority to do certain things, but I would also

agree that it's too vague — and here we are again, complaining

about vague legislation.

Where we're dealing with something which, as the Second

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) very clearly put it,

the treatment might be worse than the disease, I think there's

a real need in this bill for a few amendments. Maybe even, Mr.

Speaker, through you, the Minister might consider listening to

these comments — which I think have been constructive — from his

own Members, his own backbenchers.

This might again be a bill which could very reasonably be

held up for six months and brought back in the spring session

with some of the safeguards which several Members have

commented upon, and which I certainly feel are not at all

unreasonable.

Interruption.

MR. WALLACE: This party would certainly like to welcome back

the lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and hope that

she is fully recovered from her illness; and our best

wishes.

The lady Member may feel also, after being away a while and

coming back in and finding that we're debating weeds, that

really there's nothing changed around here.

But seriously, I wonder if the Minister would give some

thought to these comments from all sides of the House that

there is a need for more knowledge, more information, some

safeguards in relation to the use of chemicals, and whether

perhaps he might not give consideration to withdrawing the bill

and re-introducing it at the spring session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise to debate the Weed

Control Act . When it first came in it was, I thought, a

reference to the opposition, but the Minister assured me that

it wasn't.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to repeat what has been said before, and

that is that we are giving a tremendous amount of power to the

cabinet. For example, tobacco is a noxious weed, in my opinion.

It's a noxious weed, definitely, no question about it.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Minister is trying to give me

some information on whether it be noxious or not, but this is

precisely the problem. He's not quite sure whether it's

controlled under this Act or not.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He is? Tobacco is not a noxious weed, but

it could become one simply by…and perhaps when my hon.

friends to my right and my hon. friend behind me are in power,

we will declare it to be a noxious weed. That's the type of

power we should not be given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Minister of Health whether it is or

not.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It doesn't even grow

here and he knows it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, oh. Well, the Minister of Health has said that

tobacco doesn't grow here. I can assure him that some people grow it, and I

can assure him that other people grow marijuana in British Columbia. Now is

that or is that not a noxious weed, under the…?

[ Page

765 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't hear the Minister; would he speak

up? Louder, louder.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister's voice has left him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is out of his

place and should not be speaking when he's out of his place.

Indeed, another Member has the floor. Would the Hon. Member

please address the House and not an individual Minister?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're perfectly correct, Mr. Speaker. I

was addressing the Minister, but I was asking what might

constitute a noxious weed under this cabinet's decision. We've

seen confusion between two Ministers who have been commenting

across the floor as to whether tobacco or marijuana or some

other product might be noxious. Now I'm not sure that it is. I

don't know. I'm not an expert in these matters and I don't

smoke either one. I perhaps am in no position to judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which would you prefer?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question has come: which would I

prefer? Well, that's a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. I

wouldn't possibly dream of answering. But, what I'm suggesting

is that we don't have in this Act any suggestion as to how the

cabinet might act in this very interesting area of noxious

weeds. I think we should have it. I think we see here, carried

to its ultimately absurd extreme, the type of grasping powers

which this cabinet is taking to itself. They want to wait and

decide themselves what might be noxious or otherwise. Who

knows, maybe there are flowers, as was mentioned by my hon.

friend the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom),

which are classified as weeds. What we on this side of the

House might regard as attractive flowers the cabinet might

regard as a noxious weed.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

points out that with their taste perhaps many nice flowers, even roses, might

be declared to be noxious weeds. And it's true; they could be declared noxious

weeds under these regulations that might come down from the cabinet. Now we're

concerned about this legislation, as well as other legislation. Perhaps, because

it can be done with a certain bit of levity in this Act, we would Re to point

out that taking away

definitions and putting

definitions of Acts in the hands

of the cabinet, no matter what the Act might be, is a dangerous thing and a

precedent that we don't like.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to point

out that on the question of voting for this bill in principle

we feel that we should perhaps reciprocate to the government

Members' split vote yesterday. I and the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) will be voting against the

bill and my two friends on either side of me will be voting for

the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a free vote when it comes to noxious

weeds in the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I recall that when this

debate started the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips)

forecast that there would be some trouble explaining this

programme to the environmentalists. Then the various Members in

the House proceeded to give some evidence that there would

indeed be questions raised by environmentalists. He felt that

to get around this problem there would have to be a good deal

of information go out on the use of herbicides — the

justification for using herbicides under certain circumstances.

These would have to be discussed quite widely with the

public.

Really, what we are doing in this legislation, in a large

measure, is taking this sort of a programme out to the public

as opposed to having it strictly within the hands of the

Department of Agriculture, as has been the case up to now. We

are saying in this legislation that we would welcome

participation and discussions of this problem — that is, the

problem of controlling weeds, the extent of the problem, bow

the weeds should be controlled, whether, indeed, they need to

be controlled, what are weeds in different areas of the

province — taking all of these questions out into the local

areas, out into the regional districts, the municipalities, and

inviting them to participate in meaningful discussions about

this question. So we are, in part, leading into the programme

that he recommends. We are trying to involve the public in

discussions of the weed control programme.

[ Page 766 ]

As mentioned the reluctance of chemical companies to develop

herbicides is. that they run into difficulty in getting people

to use these herbicides. They are always concerned that perhaps

they won't be able to sell them when they do produce them.

I think it is well — and some of the Members have voiced

this — that they do have some, if not reluctance, at least have

in mind what effect these herbicides are having on the

environment as opposed to that particular portion of the

environment that they are intended to affect.

For example, a particular chemical might be produced to

control one very particular weed. And unless they can consider

everything else that is growing where that weed is growing,

everything that is consuming that weed as well as everything

else that is growing around there, the fact that the chemical

they are using may or may not drift with the wind, or may be

retained in the soil for a long time or may be washed into

waterways, all of these things have to be given very serious

consideration. While I wouldn't want them to stop working,

wouldn't want them to stop researching, I would want them to

have much more concern about the total environment than some of

them have had in the past.

When we are thinking about research into herbicides, we

recognize that presently we are using herbicides, of one kind

or another, all over the world. We should be trying to develop

herbicides that are much more benign when we consider their

total effect as opposed to some of the ones that are currently

in use.

Even conceding then that in some circumstances we must use

herbicides, there is need for a great deal more research to try

to find better types, better classes and better specific

herbicides than the ones that we have right now.

You suggested — I think perhaps you are mistaken; I am not

sure — as you neared your closing statement, that the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) would close the debate. I'm not sure

whether you thought he would use herbicides to settle labour

strikes, or just exactly what you had in mind — or whether it

was some kind of a Freudian slip. But I think perhaps you did

expect me to close the debate, indeed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, I rather thought so.

The Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) suggested that the control should

not go entirely to local people and I believe it was the Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who pointed out that the committee is not

entirely a local committee — one member selected from among the councillors,

one local ratepayer — I'm not sure why they say ratepayer rather than resident;

I think perhaps we are slipping into the old system — but a ratepayer, and a

third one appointed by the Department of Agriculture, which, in some people's

minds, does not give protection to the environment.

I am not ready to confess, at this time when there are

certain people who are self-professed environmentalists who

know everything there is to know about the environment, that

everyone else who is concerned, working with the environment on

a day-to-day basis, in different ways working with it, is

wrong. They set themselves up as individual experts; they are

experts simply because they say so.

I think we are all concerned with the environment I think we

are all much more concerned with the environment today than we

were yesterday, yesterday much more than we were a year ago and

a year ago very much more than we were 10 years ago All of us

are becoming increasingly aware of the environment, of the

effect of what we are doing to the environment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, all of us except two Members of the

Liberal Party, I understand, or just one?

In any case, all of us should be much more aware and most of

us are much more aware of what we are doing to the environment.

But then, simply by existing we are affecting the environment,

so I think we have to be concerned about minimizing the

deleterious effect on the environment insofar as we can.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as I know the hearings were really

on something beyond this but certainly this will be affected by

those hearings There is no question about it. Again, it is one

of the points I have down here and I will come to it.

I've forgotten right now who mentioned it, but there is a

weed control programme. Right now the Department of Agriculture

has authority to control weeds under some circumstances and is

indeed controlling weeds in certain circumstances. We're not

really suggesting in this legislation that they are going to go

out on a wide programme of spraying to try to hurry up and

control all the weeds in the province before they're stopped

because of some hearings Nothing like that at all. What we are

really doing is saying it's time we involved the whole

community in this question of weed control so that everybody is

more aware of what is going on and everybody has more of a hand

in it.

Some people are suggesting that we should back away from

this and one of the Members said that until we do the research

we really shouldn't continue with spraying programmes. I think

the Member really

[ Page 767 ]

didn't mean it the way I took it down, because if there is

anything that we learn from research, as far as I know, it's

that we need a good deal more of research. Almost everything we

learn opens up not just one new avenue, but many new avenues

for continuing investigations.

We will never get to the point in time when we finish

research. The more research we do, the more need for research.

So we can't wait until research is finished; it's a continuing

process. In the meantime we do have to take action, in some

cases, to protect the environment.

It's not always a case of herbicides. I believe I mentioned in the Legislature

on a previous occasion — if not, it was outside — the use of insects, for example,

and the very successful, in a limited area if you like, use of the cinnabar

moth to control the tansy ragwort in the Nanaimo area. This was a programme,

which was really promoted by one person who, in spite of his efforts, was ignored,

by the government of the day. At first he was ignored even by the universities

of the day. Gradually he got support from the universities but I don't think

he ever did get support from the government.

There was one particular area where the cinnabar moth was

introduced three years ago that I know of and last year was

heavily infested with the tansy ragwort when it was in bloom.

This year I didn't see a single blossom on a patch of about 15

acres. Now whether it will continue that way, I don't know. It

might have been just an ideal sort of winter for the grubs to

live. But in that particular case insect control is obviously

very promising.

There are other means of control. It's not always

herbicides. Where we have to use herbicides, we look for better

herbicides. We should always be looking for some means of

controlling them other than by using herbicides.

With respect to amending the legislation to include a broad

statement about chemicals, without seeing the wording I can't

really say whether it's an amendment that I would support. To

me it sounds like the sort of thing that everybody would

generally favour, a "motherhood" statement about the use of

chemicals. But what really would we be adding to the

legislation unless we are prepared to start defining the

chemicals, the use of them, where they may be used, and the

different areas of the province where different chemicals would

be used?

The question is: what is a noxious weed? Well in some areas

of the province some plants are weeds and in other areas they

are crops. There is quite a bill of variance that way, It is

pretty hard, in my mind, to come up with a broad statement that

would be applicable in legislation such as this.

With respect to involving the Department of Health and environmentalists, I'm

positive that as the work of the committee that is looking into this question

progresses and when that report does come out, there will be changes in this

programme. In the meantime, we feel this is an improvement over what we have

had so far.

With respect to those who had concern about the fact that

the government is the greatest offender, I would simply suggest

to them that they read

section 1,

interpretations, in

particular the definition of the word "municipality."

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 71,

Weed Control Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 71 read a second time and referred to committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder if the acting House Leader could

inform us when we'll be having the private Members' business

which is normally considered on Thursdays?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the House gave leave to

continue. On a motion from the House Leader the House, at its

convening, went ahead with public bills and orders.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have no objections, Mr. Speaker. It's

perfectly correct what the Minister says. I am simply making an

inquiry of the acting House Leader — and now I am glad to see

the actual House Leader has come in — as to when we will

revert. We understood, at least I understood, that perhaps

there was some item of pressing business which the government

wished to introduce, some reason for it. The normal procedure

is, of course, for private Members' business to occur on

Thursday afternoons and I know I and my hon. friend from Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) would both be interested to know what is the

government's intention regarding the remainder of business for

the day and whether or not we will be discussing private

Members' business?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had

more private Member's days than at any other time in the

history of this House and we have a great deal of government

business to get on with. Depending on how we proceed, perhaps

we can get some time in on private Members' day. I certainly

hope so, but the House has instructed us to continue on public

bills and orders and I think we should continue.

Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 768 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CORRECTIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24,

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REAL ESTATE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29,

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Personal Information Reporting Act reported