1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

705 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Wallace — 705

Hon. Mr. Lea — 707

Division — 707

Mr. Wallace — 708

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 708

Mrs. Jordan — 708

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 709

Mr. Bennett — 710

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 710

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 710

Mr. Smith — 710

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 710

Mr. Smith — 711

Mr. Morrison — 711

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 711

Mr. L.A. Williams — 711

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 712

Mrs. Jordan — 712

Mr. McGeer — 713

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 713

Mr. Morrison — 714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 714

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 715

Mr. Smith — 715

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 715

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Mr. Smith — 716

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 716

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Mr. McClelland — 716

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 716

Mrs. Jordan — 716

Mr. L.A. Williams — 717

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 717

Mr. Morrison — 718

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 718

Mrs. Jordan — 718

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 718

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 719

Mr. Morrison — 719

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 719

Mr. Morrison — 720

Mr. Curtis — 720

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 720

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 721

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 721

Mrs. Jordan — 722

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 722

Mrs. Jordan — 722

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 723

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 723

Mr. Gardom — 724

Mr. Smith — 724

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 724

Mr. McClelland — 725

Mr. Kelly — 725

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 725

Mr. Smith — 725

Mr. Gardom — 726

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 726

Mrs. Jordan — 727

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 727

Mr. Morrison — 728

Mr. Wallace — 728

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 729

Mr. Curtis — 730

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 731

Mr. Kelly — 732

Mr. Smith — 732

Mr. Gibson — 732

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 732

Mr. Gardom — 733

Mr. Curtis — 733

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 733

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974.

The House met at 1:10 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if I might continue,

I want to make my position quite plain. Although I'm not very fully

informed as to detail, I think the principles debated over the past few

days make it quite clear that there were several errors of judgment on

the part of the Minister of Agriculture. I was trying to put my

position in total context by saying I would differ from the opposition

point of view in degree that this kind of behaviour is the kind we've

witnessed in the United States.

I feel the motivation which got the Minister into this mess he's now in was....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): No, he isn't.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken feathers.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister is in a very unfortunate position.

The chirp, chirp, chirp from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

is largely probably because I am getting to him. Maybe he realizes that

for somebody to stand up to try and look at the situation logically,

with a measure of sympathy for the Minister, is something he just

doesn't want to hear.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): He doesn't need sympathy.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, we all need sympathy, Mr. Attorney-General, sometime in our lives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the motion before the House?

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm trying, Mr. Chairman, but I think I'm

entitled to respond to the interruptions unless you want to quiet the

interruptions also.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will somebody take that fried chicken

out of here?

MR. WALLACE: I was in quite a good mood when I came into this

chamber, Mr. Chairman, but if we're not going to have the same rules

for everybody I might become somewhat nasty.

I do feel the Minister erred by interference, but I am trying to

point out that his motivation was to try and solve a problem which

existed. I am just suggesting that he chose the wrong way to go about

it. Then, to compound his problems to a very severe degree, the Premier

of the province really put him in a position where he was then left

with no solution to the problem.

During the debate evidence has been presented in the form of

affidavit and, again, each one of us has to interpret such a document

as we see fit. Anyone of us trying to remember what was said 18 months

ago is liable, in all good faith, to make mistakes in

interpretation or

in the language you might use to describe what was said. So I don't

think we should spend any more time in semantics, debating whether or

not the Premier directed or advised or coerced or forced, or any other

word.

The fact is the Premier of the province, with or without the wish of

the Minister of Agriculture, interfered. I don't think anyone can deny,

from whatever side of the House, even from the Minister's own words

himself, that the meetings were held and a deep degree of discussion

went on about the problems with these marketing boards. I really don't

feel it matters whether the Minister says he sent them away to make

their own decisions. These boards are supposed to settle their own

affairs without any kind of interference such as we've heard described.

On that basis I have to support the motion.

I do feel it would be unfair to take such a blanket attitude to

condemning the Minister when, in point of fact, I believe his

motivation was honourable. Mistaken but honourable. I'm imputing

honourable motives to the Minister. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister suggests I might put it in

affidavit form. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the two facts that he

was new to office and that the difficulties with the marketing boards

had been in existence long before this Minister came to office. It is

quite clear to me that this appeared to be an ideal opportunity for the

dissatisfied persons in the industry to descend upon the Minister and

beat on his door, hoping he in some way or another would come up with

solutions which heretofore had been sought but not found.

It is for this reason that I feel many of the mistakes the Minister

has made in trying to straighten out this situation were well-motivated

but certainly,

[ Page 706 ]

in the light of subsequent events, it was a mistake

he made. On the other hand, we've heard of how the Premier functioned

in interfering with this Minister. He did indeed put the Minister of

Agriculture in a very difficult position. Someone suggested this

morning that when that event happened, the Minister should have either

told the Premier to keep his fingers out of it or the Minister should

have resigned.

I think again that's rather an extreme black-and-white approach to

take to the function of leadership. Surely what we look for and what we

expect from cabinet Ministers and the Premier is leadership. Sometimes

initiatives have to be taken which might bring about a solution which

heretofore is lacking. But to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture

at that point in time when the Premier interfered should have taken

such a black-and-white approach and said, "Well, either you don't

interfere or I resign" is not the kind of answer to the Minister's

problem or to the problems of an efficient government with the

awareness of the kind of leadership it's supposed to show.

If this whole debate demonstrated nothing else, it surely showed

that we should have some kind of body of authority or a supervisory

body of some nature which will consist of highly experienced,

knowledgeable people in the marketing field to whom these marketing

boards should be responsible. Cabinet Ministers will then no longer

either be subjected to the kind of pressures which have occurred in

this case or will be tempted to be dragged into a situation which leads

to the unfortunate situation we now have.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the motion but

I have some reservation inasmuch as the real villain in the piece is

the Premier of the province. The villain in my view is not the Minister

of Agriculture; he is the one who, because he is the responsible person

for the department, is being held to account. I suppose technically and

literally this is the way it should be, but I think the events which

have unfolded in this debate show he is really not the main villain in

the piece. It has been most unfortunate that the person who could have

perhaps enlightened us to a greater degree, namely the Premier, for

good reasons or otherwise has been absent this morning. If, as the

Attorney-General interjects, the Premier will give an explanation, then

we look forward to that event.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He will; don't worry about it.

MR. WALLACE: Once again the Attorney-General in very vocal. I

would suggest we're dealing with the estimates and the salary vote of

the Minister of Agriculture. He keeps interjecting that we can't talk

about the Premier or mention the Premier, when in point of fact, this

Minister would not be in the predicament he's in today if it were not

for the actions of the Premier. How can you expect us intelligently to

debate this important issue and stick strictly to the Minister of

Agriculture when the culmination of the problem was brought about by a

serious degree of interference in his department by the Premier.

Maybe we're into a new era of government where it's thought to be

acceptable that the leader of the government can take the kind of

action to overrule or override or advise Ministers and to go directly

into discussions and dealings with interested parties who have failed

to reach, or feel they have failed to reach, agreement with the

Minister.

Maybe this is the way this government intends to function. If it is

the way, then I would predict confidently that we'll have a debate of

this nature repetitively dealing with different Ministers of the Crown

in the future. If that's the case, I think we're looking forward to

debates which are unnecessary and could be avoided, because all we're

trying to get at in this case are the facts. When you have two

Ministers of the Crown or one Minister of the Crown and the Premier

involved in a manner such as this one we're now debating, it is a

rather fruitless use of four or five days of the House's time.

If the Attorney-General tells us that the Premier will explain, I

hope the Premier will also explain whether or not this is to be a

pattern of his attitude to the Premier's role in government in British

Columbia, namely that this kind of interference by him with one of his

Ministers is something we can expect at the Premier's discretion.

I would submit that it has caused a great deal of difficulty and

dissension. It's created a debate that has overlooked, unfortunately,

many of the more general matters of agriculture.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: This is regrettable, and I'm glad to hear the

Attorney-General agrees. All I'm saying, Mr. Attorney-General, is that

I can see this kind of debate being repeated, if in fact it is the

feeling of the Premier that at any time he can decide to interfere in

this manner with matters which should be decided solely between the

Minister concerned and the particular groups and associations or

citizens or, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) made very clear, within the duly authorized control of

cabinet.

If the Premier is to interfere with the Minister's department and

his problems and if, in fact, orders-in-council are to be ignored or

the provisions of the order-in-council are to be overruled by the

decision of one Minister or by the Premier, then I can only see chaos.

Inevitably orders-in-council are an unavoidable instrument of

government, but if they

[ Page 707 ]

are to be treated lightly, and if in the face of

public anger or dissatisfaction with the contents or the consequences

of an order-in-council we have the Minister reacting to pressure from

outside groups, then again, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

pointed out, we're headed for chaos.

You have to have laws and the laws have to be obeyed or not obeyed.

You can't pick and choose who shall obey them and who shall not obey

them. You can't pick and choose which Minister might be quietly

permitted to ignore the provisions of an order-in-council.

These are some of the very central principles that have been

discussed in this debate. It's always easy to be smart in retrospect —

I admit that — but I'm saying that if we've learned nothing and if the

cabinet has learned nothing, other than the fact that this style of

government, if it continues, will lead to this kind of debate affecting

other Ministers in the cabinet, I think it means that the cabinet will

finish up by appearing to have less than the respect we all expect them

to have for the law. It will certainly result in the citizens of this

province realizing that laws are very flexible things to be used and

bent to the advantage of cabinet Ministers and the Premier.

No one of us in this chamber or anywhere in this province is above

the law. The minute that this kind of situation, if it is repeated, and

I hope it isn't.... I just say in closing that if the Premier repeats

his behaviour with other members of cabinet, we'll have the same kind

of debate all over again at another time. With each such debate, I

think there'll be the sad consequence of citizens of this province

realizing that the cabinet members individually seem to consider

themselves above the law.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I

represent a northern riding, as you know. It's not a riding known for

its agricultural products, except that we do try to consume

agricultural products that are fresh and that are reasonably priced.

The people in my riding I'm sure are not interested in who said what to

whom, but whether or not they can buy fresh products, reasonably

priced, from their stores and supermarkets within the riding. I think

that's the issue; that's what we're really talking about.

There's something very strange, Mr. Chairman, going on in this

debate. It's all very strange because it seems to me that those ridings

who have never even seen a tree for a long while are the ones who are

really taking

part in this debate from the opposition.

The Hon. Members of the Liberal party are really concerned, but are

they really concerned about the north and about the Interior and about

the kind of foods that you're able to purchase? Or are they concerned

about making political marks to try and win the next election? I think

we have to think about that. Right?

I recognize that people are political — we all are, and that's why

we're here. But what's happening over here with the Social Credit

party? Two Members, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and

the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), are taking a very hard

stand in this debate. I wonder why.

The other Members are not quite as vocal. For instance, t h e Hon.

Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) knows where it's at. He's

an old politician, and he's not going to go on record in this debate as

leaving all the goodies for the Fraser Valley. He knows that; that's

not good.

And what about the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)? Where is he in this debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Out paying his bills.

HON. MR. LEA: Where are the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr.

Smith) and the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips)? But most of

all, where is the leader of the official opposition from South Okanagan

(Mr. Bennett)? When is he going to stand in this House and take a

stand? Not once has he stood in this House and taken a reasonable stand.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He spoke in the debate.

HON. MR. LEA: Let's hear what he has to say. Let's hear what

the official leader of that official opposition has to say about the

way the quotas are allocated in this province. Is he in favour of

Clearbrook or is he in favour of the Okanagan Valley and the north?

Let's hear it from him.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

NAYS — 26

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I request

[ Page 708 ]

you report this vote when you report to the Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Vote 3 approved.

On vote 4: Department of Agriculture, departmental administration, $712,170.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I notice there is an increase of

$75,000 which seems to relate to three staff. Could the Minister

explain the breakdown on that $75,000?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'm not sure of the question. Was it $30,000 for three staff? Is that what the question was?

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Chairman, could I just repeat that? You

have got an increase of three staff under general administration and

the increase in money is substantial — $75,000 — and I just wondered if

the Minister could tell us who these personnel are at $25,000 a year

each.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if you look at the expenditure

classification immediately below that — code 01 refers to salaries —

there is an increase of about $30,000 for three staff members, which is

the average provision for staff in this section. You will note last

year that there were 27 staff members at slightly under $270,000 and

now 30 at over $320,000, slightly over.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): That's $50,900.

HON. MR. STUPICH: $50,000 for three? Yes, but it's not

because of those three. It's the average for the whole group that has

gone up. There was a substantial reclassification and change of

salaries a year ago that is now reflected in the estimates.

MR. MORRISON: Could we get a breakdown on that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You could if you like. Some of them are not even hired yet.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on the same vote lower down, could

the Minister briefly tell us what particular direction the increased

grants will go? There is more money for research; it has doubled from

$50,000 to $100,000. Could we hear where the money is going?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, in the second line of that, you will

notice that it is grants to universities for research. So from time to

time during the year we agree with the universities as to what research

programmes they will follow. We have increased the provision from

$50,000 to $100,000 because we want to work more closely with the

universities in developing research.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I

would just like to point out in relation to the first question asked by

the Member for Oak Bay, and commented on by the first Member for

Victoria (Mr. Morrison), that quite obviously this form that you

presented this year as a trial area is not suitable. It is very

inadequate and it seems quite obvious from the questions that the

Minister has been asked that he, himself, is not now conversant and

does not have in his hands the information that the Members of this

House are going to need.

I would respectfully suggest that this is not a good form for

estimates in this House. It leaves too much unknown and it leaves the

Minister in a most embarrassing position where he really can't break

down the spending of his own department.

Apart from that, I would like to make reference regarding either

vote 80 or 90. I notice that there is no increase for unclassified

research and project expenditures and I think this is a disappointment

at this time when there is obviously a great deal of need for research

to be done in the agricultural industry. I would ask: which vote is the

climatology study specifically in the Okanagan going to be paid from?

Is it the university? Are they going to carry it out? Or is it going to

be done by your department, by a permanent staff, or what arrangements

have you made and how extensive is this study going to be? You didn't

answer my questions under your salary.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What study did you say? Climatology?

MRS. JORDAN: Climatology.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Were you thinking about the sewage — the effluent?

MRS. JORDAN: No, I'll get to that. Maybe I should educate the

Minister. There has got to be a study of climate factors in

relationship to the Canada Land Inventory as it is broken down into a

finer sense in relation. Then it has to be tied in economically with

whether or not you can produce a growable economic product in

agricultural land.

My understanding is, in spite of its not being carried out last

year, that it will be carried out this year. I'm sorry the Minister was

not listening under his salary because this sort of thing should be

done in many areas of the province.

I wonder if the Minister would make clear what is

[ Page 709 ]

happening in the Okanagan; what staff you are

hiring or is it going to be done through the university; when is it

starting; when do you anticipate it completed; how extensive will it be

and what other areas of the province are you doing it?

Then I would like to ask again about the effluent spray irrigation.

There are serious problems due to political indiplomacy but I

consistently pressed for funds to utilize this pilot project, to

experiment and see whether or not it's feasible to grow edible products

— humanly edible products — with this type of effluent irrigation.

Last year the Minister advised me that it was too emotional a

problem; we couldn't touch it on that basis and yet they are thinking

of putting a chicken processing plant right next to a sewage lagoon so

I suggest that that no longer is a reasonable excuse. I would like to

know if the Minister has funded for this, what these funds will be, and

when they can look forward to commencing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was no suggestion that

we would use the water from the sewage disposal pond in the chicken

processing plant but...

MRS. JORDAN: I never said there was.

HON. MR. STUPICH: ...there is some suggestion that the water

from the Vernon Spray Irrigation Project do go on the land where crops

are growing and there still is the public action against the idea of

using water from the sewage effluent in growing crops that are going to

be directly consumed by humans, and even some reaction against crops

that are going to be consumed indirectly by humans.

I said during the course of the vote 3 debate that I didn't feel

that way about it myself but I have to recognize that there is this

concern. However, as I said also during that debate, you may not have

been in the House when I replied, but that those studies are going on

under the auspices of the Land Commission. There is a vote later on if

you want to take that further.

Initial studies are being done by the Land Commission and as far as

the studies — and this is the same question and the same answer you got

last year — I am satisfied that enough work has been done on the

growing of crops with this material on top of the pilot project that

has already been in operation up there, that it is time now to move

into full-scale operation. We still have to convince the people in the

area that it is a good thing, hence these studies that are being done

by the Land Commission.

The grants, the unclassified research and projects, which you are

concerned about is still the same figure. This is a new programme

started last year for the first time, and $100,000 was voted for the

demonstration of agricultural technology and economics. The programme

did get off the ground last year. We didn't commit all of the funds.

This year we are staying with the same figure and looking at new

projects and I am satisfied that we will be able to use the funds fully

this year. If we get it rolling, I hope that we would next year ask for

more funds from Treasury and that the Legislature would see fit to vote

for them.

We are certainly listening and if there are any valid criticisms

about the change in the methods of presentation — you commented on

this...I see you are shaking your head — you don't feel that way now.

You are not criticizing it now?

lnterjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, you still are. Yes. Well, if there are

valid points, I welcome them. But the points you have made so far are

not. Because you have talked about....

MRS. JORDAN: No, because it is common sense against your

bias. So how can we win? It's not explanatory. We have to ferret too

much and you won't answer questions. That's the problem.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor for a

moment? There is more explanatory detail description in the description

of the votes. I did draw the Member's attention to the further

explanatory detail on the last page of the estimates.

As far as the breakdown in salary — in trying to find out what

individual is getting how much money — that has never been available in

estimates, to my information. If you'll compare this with any of the

other departments, you'll see that you're getting as much information

about individuals.

For example, in some situations you'll find a block of money

allotted for 240 people or some such figure, without any attempt to

break them down.

Now if you want that breakdown, and you've asked for it, it will be

provided, but I suggest that it's not necessary to include it in

estimates. The portrayal of it this year does not give any less

information in that particular regard than does the portrayal that we

had last year, or than there is for other departments.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the climatology situation and study,

Mr. Minister? Are you going to answer my questions on the climatology

studies — for the 10th time I've asked?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I did earlier when we were talking on the

Ministerial vote. I said then — you could have been out, I don't recall

— that the studies of the Canada Land Inventory, the continuing work

[ Page 710 ]

that they were going to do, as the Member I'm sure

is aware, was transferred to the secretariat. The staff of the Canada

Land Inventory, formerly in the Department of Agriculture, have been

transferred to the secretariat. So questions to be asked on that should

be asked of the Minister responsible for the secretariat.

MRS. JORDAN: So agriculture has moved out of Agriculture.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to question the Minister on No. 10: travelling expenses.

I've been trying to find out where the provision for automobile

insurance for the number of vehicles within the department is. Could he

give me the number of vehicles and the breakdown on the insurance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know whether insurance is in that.

The insurance premium is not in this travel figure. There is a separate

vote; I'm not sure where it is in the estimates. I'm told that there is

a separate vote covering insurance premiums.

MR. BENNETT: I was told by the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that it was in each departmental

estimate and I'd like you to show me where it is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: My understanding is that they will be in

the future but they're not in this year. Well, let's ask him then when

his estimates come up.

My information, Mr. Chairman...all I can give is the information I

have. My information is that they are not included in these figures.

MR. BENNETT: Can you give me the number of vehicles for which there is no insurance in these figures?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the figure that I would ask the

Member to put on the order paper. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd remind

the Member that I've answered every question that has been put on the

order paper so far, and will certainly answer that one promptly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have the same type of question, Mr.

Chairman. Travelling expenses are up to $18,000. Office expenses are up

twice what they were last year. This is the type of fat in government

which we think we should question, because it adds up to an enormous

amount in every department. I wonder if he could indicate why there is

an extra $13,000 for office expenses.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On the office expense? It is simply because

we have found out that while these figures have from year to year

remained fairly constant, with only a nominal increase, from year to

year in particular areas, such as office expense, expenditures have

been very much in excess of what has been provided in these sub-codes.

We realistically looked at them and increased them to what we feel

will cover the expense rather than pretending that office expense isn't

going to be comparable to what it was last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. We

certainly want estimates to be accurate. That's why we think the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is going to have a lot of

trouble when her estimates come up. I would like to know, though, what

the figure was last year, as opposed to the estimate last year. If this

new and doubling figure, a figure of twice the size, is to take care of

expenditures last year, undoubtedly your Deputy can provide you with

information as to what the actual expenditure was last year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the first 10 months the expenditures exceeded the provision by $7,000 for this one item.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): With respect to vote 4,

there is an item almost at the bottom of the page: grants to

universities for research. I note that the amount has increased from

$50,000 to $100,000 for this current fiscal year.

Would the Minister tell me if these grants are unconditional grants?

Are they unconditional grants, or is the money allocated with specific

instructions towards certain specified research projects?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In co-operation with the university, we decide on projects and then the money is granted for these projects.

MR. SMITH: Then you have an idea, before you authorize the

grants, of the specific research projects that you will be

participating in on a monetary basis. Could the Minister give me some

indication of the projects you are presently engaged in?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, not the specific projects for the

year ahead, no. What we do is consult with the university before we

spend any money on these grants to the universities, and then on the

basis of the project decide to what extent we are going to support that

particular project.

Last year the $50,000 was based on what had been in there before,

and we had that figure. But I felt that there was a woeful inadequacy

to co-operate with the university to the extent that we would have

liked to,

[ Page 711 ]

and we asked for more money for this. Projects will

be considered as they come up. But we don't have a list of projects

right now adding up to $100,000.

MR. SMITH: Well, what projects were you in last year to spend $50,000? Could you give me an indication?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I could get a list of those and give you

the amount spent on each one. There were studies of engineering; we

were talking about waste-disposal programmes — a problem particularly

in the Fraser Valley where there is so much population, animal and

human population, so close together. We have been studying ways of

trying to dispose of this waste, from an agricultural point of view,

more efficiently.

We have been studying animal rations. The university has been

studying them and submitting proposals to us. In total something like

25 or 30 different projects were supported by the Department of

Agriculture under this code last year.

MR. SMITH: Are you in any way involved in any projects or

research projects along the lines of discovering new forms of protein

food or supplements to take the place of our locally grown and known

dairy products and beef products? Is there any research going on in

that direction?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For human consumption?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know of any projects like that.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, some of the problems which I find

in trying to analyse what's happening in this department are reflected

perhaps best in item No. 30 where it lists office expense, and they

show an office expense increase of $13,000. When you refer back to that

page N26 which the Minister referred to, item 30 doesn't show anything

in the form of rent.

I'm a little curious to know, first of all, where the 30 people are

going to be accommodated, and why there is no rent or rent equivalent

shown in this department. The same question applies, of course, to the

automobiles and insurance. Those sorts of things become almost

impossible to dig out. This is the sort of item I'd like the Minister

to refer to.

Secondly, while he's looking that one up, he made a comment that one

item was up $7,000 over the estimates for the first 10 months. We have

only the first nine months in our interim financial statements. But the

item that he referred to as being up $7,000 is showing here as being

$1,000,001 below. When you extrapolate it out it would appear that he

isn't going to spend it at all. So again I would like to know how you

find that figure.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, of course, when you talk about

$1,000,001 below, we're talking about entirely different totals, aren't

we? I'm talking about one sub-code.

Now he wants to know how we compared in every one of these. If you

want I'll give you the figures for each sub-code. But the point I was

trying to make with you earlier is that that information was not

available in estimate form before. He's drawn attention to office

expense and says: what does this figure tell you when it's in this form?

If you look under Health Services you'll find a figure for office expense. Are you any further behind or further ahead?

MR. MORRISON: But again, Mr. Chairman, if you read item 30 on

page N 26, it lists office expense as supplies and expenses required

for the operation of offices. It doesn't say anything about the rent

for them...and also the lease or purchase of office furniture and

equipment. Now all we're talking about is the things that go in them.

Well, where are the offices and where does the rent show up?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Sorry, I missed that question. That figure

will be in Public Works. Public Works pays the rent on behalf of all

government offices. That supplies buildings. They're not all rented,

obviously. Public Works supplies the buildings or rents space for

government departments.

MR. MORRISON: I realize that, but does not each department in their estimates have to include any of their office rent or its equivalent?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's being considered but it's not been accomplished yet. No, that's not in the accounts that way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I too must

express my concern about the form of the estimates, Mr. Chairman. When

I compare the information that we did receive in previous years with

what is contained in these estimates, it shows it to be sorely lacking

in any kind of information.

The Minister said that we never got much information before. But it

should be recognized by the committee that under what is now called

departmental administration, previously called general administration,

we had a complete list of all salaries, for example, which went to the

Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy, agriculturists, the

administrative officers, the engineers, laboratory scientists, research

officers — position, after position,

[ Page 712 ]

after position, each bearing a proper code, each

capable of being classified and enabling us to determine whether or not

expansions of staff were being carried out in the areas where need

existed.

We also find when we get over to the matter of straight expenses

that we had far more items under general administration than is now the

case. I wonder if the Minister would tell us what has happened to

rebates on stumping powder, subsidies on agricultural lime, the

expenses of the food control — only to name a few.

While I'm on my feet I might also point out that under the estimates

we are currently considering we have an item, advertising and

publications, which is classification 40. Now, previously we always

used to have a code number which could be very carefully checked with

the Comptroller-General to relate expenditure vouchers to these items

in our estimate book.

But it shows this year, under advertising and publications, that the

amount that was estimated in the previous year was $65,000. Yet, when I

look at the estimates that we considered last spring, I find that there

were two items: advertising and publicity $25,000; printing and

publications $15,000. That totals $40,000, not $65,000. But we are now

lumping them together, and the estimates, which should suggest to us

that last year there was estimated $65,000, when in fact $40,000 was

the figures, show this year we're estimating $75,000. So the increase

this year is $35,000, not merely $10,000.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, perhaps he would indicate clearly to

us: are we to understand, with respect to his estimates, that if we

wish to have information as to the classifications of employees and the

gross salaries paid in those various classifications, we will

henceforth be obliged to place questions on the order paper? I suggest

to the Minister that if such is the case, then his department officials

are going to be involved in the production of voluminous amounts of

material which could easily have been solved by simply placing the

facts before us in the estimates which we consider in this committee.

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough also to indicate with

regard to classification 90 — unclassified research and project

expenditures — exactly what it is that he proposes to do in this

regard. He would indicate that last year a budgeted amount of $100,000

was available, and yet reference to the estimates of last year indicate

that $100,000 was for demonstration and applied research. Now it's

unclassified research and project expenditure; I'd like to know what

the distinction is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The distinction between...what was that again?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The distinction between what we had last

year called "demonstration and applied research" and now we have

"unclassified research and project expenditure." I want to know what

the distinction is, and what you put within unclassified research.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The list of projects under the

demonstration of agricultural technology and economics that was

financed this year — I can file that list in complete detail. It was

published in Country Life

very recently, so the farmers have the information. You could probably

get that publication, there was a complete list in there. I didn't

bring the list with me — since it was published that way I thought the

Members would be aware of it. I'll certainly make that list available.

Some of those projects will be considered and some new ones will be

added, but that's the programme for this year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Where's the food council expenditure?

HON. MR. STUPICH: What vote was it in last year?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Vote 4 is in general administration again.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What classification is it under?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The food council is divided.... I'm working on it now. I know it's in vote 4.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that the Minister

doesn't know his way around his own estimates. I think this speaks

again of why this is not a good system.

I am intrigued with code 75 and your explanation. You have allowed

$25,000 last year and $30,000 this year, and your explanation is that

it's the acquisition of machinery and equipment not included elsewhere

— including purchase of aircraft, construction equipment, boats and

ships. What's that all about, Mr. Minister? I'm not an economist and

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has rather rudely suggested that I

don't understand economics, and I'm willing to accept that. But I think

even in my naive way I wouldn't expect to buy ships and boats and

aircraft with $25,000 or $30,000.

We would like to know what it's all about, and why when so much of

the Agriculture's department authority is being removed to the Land

Commission, and out of the Minister of Agriculture's hands, you need

ships and aircraft.

[ Page 713 ]

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member's question makes actually more sense than she intended it to, because code 75....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Would that rude

Minister who tries to cover up his incompetence with inane and childish

remarks withdraw, please? I don't mind what I call myself, but I do

object to a Minister of the Crown.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): You're still a little-girl opposition Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm still bigger than you are.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister continue?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For those Members interested in at least

looking at the new form and giving it some consideration, you will note

that code 75 can be included under any of the votes. Now, maybe in some

cases it isn't appropriate. But you'll see there's a code 75 under vote

4; there's one under vote 5; one under.... I won't bore you with

looking any further — my point is: it's for acquisition of equipment.

And in any vote where it's appropriate to acquire equipment, well then

it refers to the type of equipment that might be acquired under that

vote.

Here we are dealing with departmental administration, where it would

not be appropriate to buy a boat; it would be appropriate to buy an

adding machine. Now that's the sort of equipment that we're talking

about in departmental administration. When we come to the next vote,

production and marketing programme — same code number, same words —

equipment — but quite different equipment.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I want

to know why the Department of Agriculture has $30,000 allotted for not

just adding machines, but as you say, aircraft, construction equipment,

ships and boats. I don't want a dissertation on your accounting system.

I want to know: does this Minister know what he's supposed to be

purchasing in the way of ships and aircraft for $30,000, including

adding machines? The Minister doesn't know his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 4 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: No, wait!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to answer the....

HON. MR. STUPICH: How many ships are we going to buy under general administration? I am not going to dignify that with an answer!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey make his point?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the Minister,

with this new method of accounting here — there are two questions.

First of all, if we ask for vouchers, ultimately, under this vote —

before, we could ask for a code number which broke it down fairly well.

I presume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when expenditures under

the vote go to the Treasury Board, suppose there's unexpended money

under vote 4030, incidentals and contingencies, they just consider the

total vote, and if you overexpend under one code number, then you can

use unexpended funds under another code number to supplement. In other

words, you can go over on a code number within a vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No change.

MR. McGEER: It's always been that way? But you need a

supplement. And if there is unexpended funds in the vote, then that

goes back to the Treasury Board again. Say, if there's money left over

in 4 and you needed money in 5, you've got to go back to the Treasury

Board for that exchange, but code numbers within a vote are at

departmental discretion.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Comptroller-General still has quite a

lot to say about that. He questions very closely the appropriateness of

a particular expenditure to the vote and code number that we are asking

that it be charged to. These are all checked.

MR. McGEER: ...there is far less of the detail. We certainly

can't see it in the books. You say it is being broken down in just as

much detail into code numbers. It is just being presented in a more

generalized form in the books — is that it? All of the Members are

having trouble relating last year's detailed division, for example, of

vote 4, which consumes almost two pages, with the cryptic notations

under vote 4 in this year's books. It's half a page, and obviously

there's been a great deal of condensation. That is how it is presented

to us.

My question is: how is it controlled from within the department, and

how do we pursue the detailed expenditures — ultimately by requesting

vouchers?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You can request vouchers as you could in

the past. It was the habit then to request them by vote and by code

number, if you chose. It

[ Page 714 ]

was my habit, when I was in Public Accounts, to request by payee. I'm not suggesting that Public Accounts do that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It is all recorded — not here, but in Public Accounts. I found a way of doing it.

In any case, the hope of this plan is not to give less information,

but to relate the details so that it makes more sense. As the

Comptroller-General said in presenting this, it is hoped that the

expenditures will be related to projects and programmes rather than to

the specific items about which you have been raising questions.

Now, you've got into the habit, I suppose, of looking at it the old

way, and you find that more interesting. Maybe that's what we will have

to stay with. But it was the hope that it would be more informative,

more interesting to the Members and to the public, to know more about

programmes and projects and have them identified that way rather than

the other way.

MR. MORRISON: Perhaps I could get a little closer to what I

am driving at, then, in the 1974 red book on page N19, where it says

"departmental administration." How does that relate to the 1973 book —

the blue book? I realize that the vote numbers don't necessarily have

to be the same, but we have also there listed "general administration."

Now, is departmental administration only a part of general

administration? Is this where we are getting confused?

HON. MR. STUPICH: One important difference is that before we

had practically the whole staff of the department under general

administration; this year the staff has been moved out to other votes.

That's why last year's total under vote 4 in the red book is much less,

as you say, than the total that was there the year before. The reason

largely is that the staff are now under various votes. That's supposed

to be one of the benefits — the staff will be related to the project,

rather than to this grab-bag of general administration.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I think that is probably where part of

the confusion is coming from — the fact that departmental

administration is only a part of that previous general administration

figure. But we find it difficult to relate some of the expenses then,

too, because they appear to turn up in other votes, and I find it hard

to try and find out which expense rightfully belongs to that department.

For example, one of them, in the previous book item 29, which was

"motor vehicles and accessories," at $50,000, does not appear — at

least if it does, I don't know where it is — in this particular vote.

Now, does that relate to some other vote, or where do I find it? How do

I get a comparison?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, that would be code 75 — equipment.

And there is some under general administration. I'm not saying that

there are any motor vehicles necessarily in that figure, but the bulk

is....

MR. MORRISON: Well, it was $50,000 last year. Where are they this year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The vehicles?

MR. MORRISON: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will find them under vote 5, because

most of the vehicles in the Department of Agriculture are associated

with the production and marketing programmes of the department, rather

than with the general administration.

MR. MORRISON: I'm sure you can see why we find this extremely

confusing; there is just no way to relate them. I don't know how

anybody is going to figure out what has transpired. Maybe when we are

used to the new system, but....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Ask the question, and if I don't have an

answer I'll get it. But I have a short list here and I think I can find

anything that was in last year and tell you where it is this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that

this is a new system, but when we have less than one-third of the

information provided that we had last year in terms of breakdown — a

third of the space on the page — we find it very difficult to

correlate. I just don't think that the best way of going about this

would be for us to question line by line what happened last year and

try and find out where it occurs this year, and that's pretty well what

you ask us to do with your last statement about the fact that you have

the information there. We don't have it here, and it is complicated.

In these votes, for example, we don't know what the salaries of

particular people are or the increases in individual numbers or

individual categories are. I think that — as we are probably going to

break for lunch anyway; I trust we are — you could put your

departmental officials on to the job of preparing something

approximating last year's breakdown so that we could then relate the

two.

I appreciate fully that this is an experimental system that you have

introduced, and you've been perfectly frank in saying that it is going

to take time

[ Page 715 ]

getting used to, but we don't have any transitional

document from one to the other. No doubt your departmental officials

could, for example, take last year's figures and relate them directly

to this year's votes, because we are having a little difficulty over

here. We are not finding the information, and we think that if this

were done this way we would appreciate a little better your new

breakdown.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, vote 4 this year is

comparable to vote 4 last year — same heading — except that the various

codes as detailed on N26 have been transferred from general

administration when it is appropriate to transfer them to the remaining

votes, such as production and marketing programmes, agriculture and

rural development programmes, and so on.

When we come to vote 5, if we do come to vote 5, it's the same

thing. Last year it was production services and this year it is

production services. Vote 6: last year's special services are included

in vote 5 this year.

So 5 and 6 from last year are both included in production and

marketing services, because they are production and marketing services.

If you would care to note it, 5 and 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are all

included in vote 5 this year, because they are, indeed, all production

and marketing services.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, repeat that again.

HON. MR. STUPICH: 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14. Those votes from last

year are all in vote 5. And then vote 5 this year, as I said, also

includes things that were formerly in vote 4, like salaries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is very little information on that page.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, we haven't come to that yet.

Vote 4 approved.

On vote 5: production and marketing programme, $5,921,786.

MR. SMITH: There are a couple of points that I would like to

make under this vote. The first thing I would like to do is direct the

Minister's attention to the vote for weed control in conjunction with

regional districts. I note that that vote is up from $10,000 to

$200,000. Now, clearly this must anticipate a greatly accelerated

programme of weed control in the province.

I'd like the Minster to tell us just what he envisions in this

programme, whether there will be financial commitments by the regional

district out of funds available to them on a joint basis with the

provincial government, and whether the programme takes into

consideration the control of weeds on rights-of-way that belong to the

province in right of the Crown, be they Hydro roads, pipelines, or

whatever.

What type of a programme, Mr. Minister, do you intend to participate

in, and will the regional districts themselves, and the municipalities

or whatever, be contributing funds to make this programme workable?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, you will recall and the Hon.

Member opposite will recall that the Weed Control Act, which was

discussed in the fall session, made provision for co-operation with the

regional districts and even at times anticipated in the case of some

regional districts at least that there might be financial co-operation.

There would be a certain minimum programme that we would operate under

our own legislation. In other instances we would co-operate with

regional districts that felt the basic programme wasn't sufficient for

their needs, and there was some willingness on the part of local people

to support a better programme.

With respect to the concerns opposite about not being able to find

things, it was recognized, I think, very early in the scheme that this

was different. I suppose I'm a bit disappointed in that you've had this

form available to you now for three weeks. The Members of the Liberal

Party, who are particularly concerned about this, have had them for

three weeks and have had research staff assigned to them. We've been

four days on the estimates when these estimates have been before them,

and yet this would appear to be the first time they have seen fit to

raise any questions about any details.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You've had three weeks with this before

you, you have research staff paid for by the government, and you could

have had any amount of back-up material if you had given some

indication as to the kind of information you would have liked to have

had today.

You chose not to do that. That's your choice. But now the estimates are before you and we're dealing with them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...his comment passes unchallenged.

MR. SMITH: Could I pursue the same question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm asking the Member to pursue his question.

[ Page 716 ]

MR. SMITH: I'm not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My point of order is this: the Minister

has made accusations that we're not looking at this. We cannot in this

House discuss votes until we come to them. We now come to them; we

discuss them. It's fair enough, I think, to ask you some of the

questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is a point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm saying it's not a point of order. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: I want to pursue just a little further this matter

of this weed-control programme because it is a new programme, as the

Minister has outlined. Who is to take the initiative in the programme?

Is it the anticipation of your department that the regional districts

will set up a programme with which you will co-operate or will your

department actually initiate the programme? If so, do you have specific

areas of the province in mind or is it a general programme throughout

the whole province?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, from a priority point of view there

are specific areas in mind, yes. We know there are particular weed

problems in some special areas and we will want to direct our attention

to those first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, under office expenses, item

30, $68,500 is shown. The Minister read out the number of previous

votes which are included in this new vote 5; the total happens to be

$86,000. I'd like to know how he gets the discrepancy of $86,000 under

the estimates of the previous year and $68,500 printed in this year's

estimates.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are there any further questions, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've asked your question; you'll get your answer from the Minister. He doesn't have to give you that answer now.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a couple of questions

about the marketing-board situation. In view of the fact that the

information we have before us now shows that the programme to expand

the egg-marketing scheme throughout the province has collapsed, have

you contacted these people from the B.C. Egg Producers Association and

called them into meetings? What are your plans in regard to this

expansion?

Secondly, I'd like you to clear up a question for me that you

answered yesterday for the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) with

regard to the suggestion that egg quotas for valley producers be cut

back from the 90 per cent they're now established at by a further 10

per cent.

The Minister said in answer to that question that he wasn't aware of

any such suggestions, but published reports in the paper have indicated

that was a suggestion by poultry commissioner Bill Wood in that leaked

confidential report we referred to earlier. It seemed to me the report

was leaked to everyone but the Minister. Would the Minister care to

comment on these questions, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been many discussions and many

memoranda in the department on this whole question of the egg industry.

The one you are talking about was an interdepartmental memorandum. It's

not my policy. Now, what's your problem? What's your question? I have

not adopted that policy. I can't remember how you phrased it now: you

say the scheme has failed?

MR. McCLELLAND: The programme has collapsed.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Collapsed, that's right. I don't recognize

that it has collapsed. I have heard from you to the effect that it has

collapsed, and you have read out several times in the course of the

vote 3 debate that there was a resolution passed at the poultry

association meeting. That resolution may very well be on my desk; I

haven't had much opportunity to look at my desk in the past four days.

It may be waiting for me. If I become convinced that the scheme has

collapsed, well then, I'll have to find some way of getting the scheme

reorganized and start all over again. I'm not yet convinced that it has

indeed collapsed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can get off his

high horse and answer some questions some of the producers are

concerned about without being sarcastic, I'd ask him if this is the

right vote and how much he has allotted for the food fair. I understand

that in the previous government's administration there was $10,000 in

1972. Last year you only budgeted and gave $6,000. I'd like to know how

much you've budgeted this year, where the budget is, and, if you've cut

it down this year, why. Why did you cut it down last year?

[ Page 717 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have forgotten what figure you said. The actual grant was $7,500 last year. The provision is in grants under this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: How much have you budgeted for it specifically this year and, if it's down, why?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The cut-down last year was because some

sections of the agricultural industry declined to take

part in the

programme. Whether they will or not this year, I don't know. I have

written letters to some of them urging them to come back in and to

participate because we would like to include agriculture as widely as

we can.

We have the money to contribute in the grants programme if they will participate. I can't guarantee their participation.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you change the ground rules for their

participation? I understand there was some concern where it insisted it

become a more comprehensive display with more people putting input.

There was a lot of concern that certain aspects of the industry lost

their identity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We didn't change the ground rules; we did

make some attempt to get them to consolidate their efforts and, instead

of having separate displays, to work together and to produce a really

worthwhile display for agriculture. But we didn't change the ground

rules that would encourage any of them not to participate. We want

maximum participation.

MRS. JORDAN: But don't you think one of the problems you're

running into is the fact that they are losing their identity? You could

get an overall effective display, if in fact, you left them with more

of an onus to their own identity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't quite know. The honey producers,

for example, stayed out. I don't know how they could be losing their

identity. They are a very particular group and yet they chose to stay

out. I'm hoping this year they'll choose to come in. I'm not sure what

the Member is driving at when she says they're losing their identity

because of something we are doing in this programme. If they have

separate displays, separate booths, we want it to be the kind of thing

to build up the whole picture, if you like. But they do have separate

displays.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I asked the Minister once with regard to what is

included in vote 5. You gave us the number of votes from last year that had

been drawn together under this vote. What was in vote 4 last year? Also in vote

HON. MR. STUPICH: In vote 4, salaries were a very large part

of general administration last year and this has been allocated among

other votes. Do you want to know other items apart from salaries, like

office expenses, for example?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's the only one. So salaries out

of vote 4 have now been moved forward to vote 5, and also items from

vote 6, 8 and 11 and 12.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I won't say there are salaries in all those votes particularly, but yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to salary classification in

vote 5, the increase is $500,000 and yet the number of persons employed

is only increased by eight. Are you suggesting or can we conclude that

you've hired eight people at $60,000 a year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No. You will notice that the number of

executive and senior management people with a higher salary group have

increased by 50 per cent. You'll notice that the professional and

technical people have been increased by only three. There was a 10 per

cent salary adjustment — it was more than 10 per cent — last year.

You'll recall the first settlement the present administration made to

the employees; it was a minimum of 10 per cent or $75 a month,

whichever was greater. So the salary adjustment was in excess of 10 per

cent. In addition to that salary adjustment which accounts for in

excess of $310,000, there are the increases to staff.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A specific question. You've increased

executive and senior management by two. Could you identify the

employment category? Can you tell me if the categories are filled or

unfilled, and in the other case what salaries do you intend to pay to

those two new classifications?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's one remaining to be filled. We've been looking for some time for the right person to fill that position.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What kind of a position is it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Research and economics.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Both of them?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it's a combined position. There is one position remaining to be filled. The others have been filled.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Both in research and economics?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That one person will do both.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Who's the other new employee? What classification?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, it's not a new employee; it's a

transfer. We get into this bag of transferring from other votes. We

have moved people from special services which last year was vote 6. The

top man there was moved into the production and marketing programme.

That accounted for one of them. The other is a position yet to be

filled.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How much do you propose to pay for the research economist?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The position was advertised, I believe, at from a range of $21,000 to $24,000.

MR. MORRISON: This again is part of the problem as I look at

vote 5, and we get into the administration item No. 1. We show a staff

increase of only two people and yet we show a salary increase then of

$63,353.

Item 2, which I assume includes some staff — it shows the staff increase of two — went up $188,125.

Item 3, livestock, shows a staff increase of four people but a total increase of $402,666.

These are some of the reasons we're a little unhappy with this. It's

hard to sort out what is staff increase, what is wages and what is in

other departments. There's no way you can relate them and, frankly,

that's why I much prefer the old system. At least the staff position,

although not named... The position was there and the salary structure

was there and we could take that out of it and decide what was left in

that extension or livestock department. Could I have an explanation of

those three items now, please?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As you say, administration includes an increase in staff of two. But then under administration as well...

MR. MORRISON: That $63,000 is shown.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, but you see in addition to

staff...surely as an accountant you'll recognize that office expenses

are part of administration. So there are all these things that...it's

just two ways of arriving at the same total.

MR. MORRISON: Well, in the past you showed it; then I could

take that out because the staff position at least was there and I could

total that....

HON. MR. STUPICH: You know the total staff. Do you want a breakdown under each of the activities as well?

MR. MORRISON: Right. I'd like to know how much of that increase of $63,000 was staff, and how much of it was activity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Okay, I think you're getting more information this way than you were the other way. But you want it a different way.

MR. MORRISON: I could take it out of there with no trouble at all last year.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to ask a question in regard to

conditions of employment. I understand that there are some highly

competent agricultural people applying for positions with the

department that cannot be filled under the present qualification

requirements — i.e. a Canadian citizen or British subject.

I wonder, in view of the fact that one or two of these people, as I

understand it, who are applying and who don't qualify on that basis,

are almost thought to be world authorities, and we can't fill the

positions within the confines of Canadian citizen, or British subject,

if he's going to waive this. There is a specific instance in the

Kelowna office.

I'd like to go back to code 75, and I shall, with every respect and

as courteously as I can, ask the Minister — which in this area reflects

$200,000 and, according to his notes, reflects an interest in purchase

of aircraft, construction equipment, ships and boats — for a detailed

explanation of what he intends to do under this vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know whether I made myself clear

before, but under this uniform expenditure classification this is the

classification that would apply to every department we moved into this.

So the reference to boats and aircraft — the terminology, the

description — would be exactly the same for every department if we

moved into this system of presentation.

So while code 75 describes....

MRS. JORDAN: You mean I have to ask that question under all departments before I get an answer?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, I think perhaps the Minister could use a bit of ingenuity in determining under what department....

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not the Minister any more.

[ Page 719 ]

You are.

HON. MR. STUPICH: My apologies. I'm not sorry, but I

apologize for my mistake. I think you could, with a bit of ingenuity,

determine under which department you should ask whether or not it is

the intention of the department to purchase any aircraft. For myself it

is not the department policy to purchase aircraft, construction

equipment, ships or planes. But we will be purchasing....

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I'm listening. You'll be purchasing...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I had a question to the

Minister on how office expenses which previously totalled $86,000 under

the careful and detailed breakdown suddenly wound up at $58,500 for the

year 1973-74.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The department administrative officer, in

consultation with the Comptroller-General in arriving at these figures,

came to the conclusion that there were a lot of items formerly called

office expenses that were deserving of something a little better than

office expense.

If you want a detailed breakdown in this particular instance as a

matter of information as to why they were changed and what the specific

figures were and where they all ended up, I'll provide that.

But that's the theory behind it — that the old heading "office

expense" was being too generally used to throw in a lot of stuff.

Sometimes accountants do that. When they don't know where else to put

it they call it office expense. This is intended to be a more accurate

reflection of what should properly be called office expense.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This may be, Mr. Minister, but we voted

last year on office expenses of $86,000. We find this year that somehow

it's disappeared. Now I agree you can change things around, but our

difficulty is trying to relate to two systems. It said $86,000 when we

passed it last year and you defended that vote. Now apparently you've

abandoned it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: But we haven't abandoned any of the money;

the money has been moved to another code number. In this case it's gone

to materials, supplies, and utilities; it's in code 50 — the amount by

which office expense was decreased in the estimates.

Now when we get to public accounts, of course, the public accounts

for the year ending March 31, 1974, will show the estimates as they

were for the year. But in this case, rather than show the old figures,

which would be rather meaningless compared to new figures if we had

changed the meaning of the description, we felt we should try to break

down the old figures and show how they would have looked had we been on

this system.

In retrospect, going through the debate right now, if we had left

that figure as it was, then it would be a much easier task, but it

would not have been nearly as informative.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that we have

no basis of comparison by the Minister's own statement — no basis

except the overall totals. No matter how much research we do, no matter

how much time we spend on this, the difficulty we face is that we have

to reconstruct things which we felt we passed upon last year and which

we thought might reappear.

You talk, for example, of some of the office expenses going to

material supplies and utilities. But "material supplies and utilities"

is used this year, and yet "equipment machinery and supply" was used

last year. The difficulty is that we don't know where the money has

gone, we don't know where the breakdown is. We can only examine total.

For example, here, material supplies and utilities they put down

last year as $135,955. Yet when you total up last year's equipment,

machinery and supply, it's over $220,000. Now there is a substantial

discrepancy of $100,000. I'd like to know where it is.

MR. MORRISON: Again, item 60: I'd like to know what rentals

includes. That one is a little hard to sort out. Also item 10: we're

talking about travelling expenses last year of $471,300. This year

we're projecting an increase of $121,700. I'd like to know what goes

into that.

As far as I can find, I don't know where the rentals came from that

they got the $20,000 for this year. I couldn't find rentals last year

and yet you've shown $20,000 as being somewhere. You found it in that

budget — I don't know where — and you've got $23,000 as projected this

year.

The two questions are the travelling and the rentals.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The rentals referred to here in the Department of Agriculture are for equipment or, well, generally equipment that's rented.

MR. MORRISON: When you say equipment, now do you mean office equipment?

HON. MR. STUPICH: When we're dealing with production and

marketing, no. But when we are in the other vote, yes. In this case it

might be agriculture equipment that we're renting for research

purposes. We might rent equipment. On occasion we even rent

helicopters, for example.

[ Page 720 ]

Sometimes it would be properly under travel. If we're going

somewhere, if it's to review something, to look over something, then

it's not considered travel. It's considered looking at that particular

project and then it's under rental.

MR. MORRISON: Would you be renting land also and that sort of thing for experimental work?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It could be. Not so much experimental work,

but we've looked at land with the point of view of developing community

pastures. Under those circumstances it would be appropriate to call it

rentals rather than travel.

MR. MORRISON: What about the travel item? You've got $121,000 increase in travels...

HON. MR. STUPICH: It was a Treasury Board decision to simply

increase travel across the board. This was discussed to some extent

last year. Under the previous administration there had been a very

tight lid kept on travel, particularly for staff. Under the present

administration we felt that we were losing out a lot in not letting

staff attend short conferences that were held all over the country and,

to some extent, in the States as well. We've allowed a good deal more

of that to take place, and we've found that we've had to increase

substantially.

Rather than have each Minister come in and try to justify a

particular increase for his department, Treasury decided to grant a

substantial increase across the board and see what their experience is

this year.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask also, Mr. Chairman: would that

travel allowance item, gasoline and those sorts of expenditures, appear

in that place, or would I find them again somewhere else? In other

words, for any company cars or staff cars, where would the gasoline be

charged to?

HON. MR. STUPICH: This is gasoline for the government cars, you mean?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, would that be a travel item?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That would be a travel item.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I guess this is the appropriate point

then to ask. I'd like to ask what the department's policy is for staff

usage of government cars, and are the government cars again stickered

on the door so they are identifiable or do you have a licence number

that identifies them; do you have a code system? And what is the

arrangement for people taking government vehicles home or using them on

weekends for private use; or exactly what is your department's policy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The policy has not changed in this regard.

The staff cars are all identified with the decal and they are to be

used for official uses only. Some members of staff, the district

agriculturists in particular, for example, use them to drive back and

forth to their office from home, but they're not supposed to be used on

weekends for private pleasure driving or things like that.

MR. MORRISON: Well, it must be obvious that there is a great

deal of this happening, not only around the city. It's probably a

little more obvious to me because I cover this area. But it's very

common to see cars, which, frankly, I think belong in your department,

around on weekends. Some of them I know and have identified do not have

stickers on them. Because of the licence number sequence it's pretty

easy to identify government cars.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If you have any specific instances, I'd

certainly be quite happy to look into them and get an answer. To the

best of my knowledge the cars are all identified. It's quite possible

the staff are using them on weekends on official business, because in

the Department of Agriculture — I suppose in many of the other

departments as well, but certainly in the Department of Agriculture —

members of staff are often involved on weekends.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, just

following on that point. Mr. Minister, a number of your departmental

employees would use their own vehicles. I think we've seen this

throughout the province, and the expenses paid would be included in

this vote, is that correct?

Would you give us an idea of the percentage? Do most of your

departmental people use government cars? Is the privately-used

automobile in the minority? I know a number of DAs appear to be driving

their own automobiles and at considerable expense in the long-term life

of that automobile, by the way. They have to travel over some pretty

rough ground.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Again, it's the old policy; there's been no

change. But a government employee that is driving so much that in the

course of the year he would rack up 12,000 or more miles, is required

to use a government car rather than claim mileage for his own vehicle.

Now whether or not a particular government employee is entitled to a

vehicle depends not just on mileage, but on other peculiar aspects of

his responsibilities. I'm not saying he has to drive 12,000 miles to

get a vehicle. I'm saying that he can't claim

[ Page 721 ]

any more than 12,000 miles. He's obliged to have a government vehicle beyond that.

MR. CURTIS: Such criteria as the territory to which he's been assigned, and the nature of his specific work?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The

question of travel came up with the First Member for Victoria. I have

searched this and have found no way of coming to the figure of $471,000

for travel last year. Mine comes under $438,000. I wonder where the

extra might be. It's a substantial increase, of course, between this

year and last year, even on the figures put forward in vote 5. But when

you compare it with the vote of two years ago, it's a quantum jump of

enormous proportions. It's well over double.

I would like to know precisely where that figure was arrived at,

because I feel the figures here cheat. What they do is show a higher

total for last year than what we actually voted last year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I could just give an example, there was

a vote last year — vote 11, "rodent control" — which is one blanket

figure for rodent control. Now part of rodent control is travel. As I

suggested earlier, if you want that kind of breakdown, well, of course,

it's going to take a lot more research to give you specific answers.

But in this instance, one of the reasons you've fallen short in trying

to arrive at that figure is rodent control. There's a lot of travel

involved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Minister, then, on the

question of materials, supplies and utilities and equipment, machinery

and supply: will he give the rationale behind the change in breakdown

and how it occurs? There are substantial funds involved and I just

don't see the change in breakdown.

I will be happy, while the Minister is searching for an answer, to

speak at some length so that his assistants can inform him of where the

change occurs. While I'm doing that, I might refer to other votes there.

Last year we voted $10,000 for artificial insemination: I fail to

find it this year. Are we going back to natural methods or are we

simply changing our approach? Are we no longer in this programme? I ask

this question because last year we cut down substantially the amount of

money we voted to artificial insemination, and this year apparently

we've cut it out altogether.

Livestock improvement is another area where I'd like to ask what has

happened to the vote. There are plenty of others. There are all sorts

of them down here but perhaps the Minister is now ready to answer my

earlier question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: This one you don't really want an answer

to, do you? You're just giving me time to find the answer to the other

one. This one I can answer; it's in special services. Artificial

insemination is in professional and special services.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Natural insemination is under amateur services, is that correct?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I said professional and special, not amateur.

The other questions you asked: items for machinery and equipment

were scattered throughout the votes that I said are now included under

vote 5, under the recirculation. If you want specific information as to

how you arrive at any one of these figures that you want, well, then I

will provide that. But give it to me in writing. Slip a note across or

something and then I'll get it to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll be happy to send the Minister notes if he'd prefer me to write rather than to speak.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Or just put it on the order paper if you like.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But another question is weed control in

conjunction with regional districts. Now we had a certain amount of

weed control last year. Control of noxious weeds: labour, material and

supplies went up from $8,500 to $10,000. Taken over two years, it's

gone from $8,500 to $200,000.

HON. MR. STUPICH: For weed control?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, for weed control. Perhaps we'll have some explanation of that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, yes. You recall the legislation that

we passed in the fall session. So we are considering getting involved

in a much heavier weed control programme than we did before. Also it

involves co-operation with the regional districts. There'll be some

funding of local programmes as well. So it's a much expanded programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister then, in view of

the concern in the public mind about herbicide programmes, the B.C.

Hydro spraying in particular, what type of $200,000 programme this is

going to be? Are we going to increase by twenty-fold the amount of

herbicide sprayed in British Columbia or not?

[ Page 722 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The programmes will be appropriate to the

weed and to the area that we're working on. You'll recall there was

discussion in the fall session. I said then that one of the reasons for

having the local committees was that there would be local consideration

of the very questions that you have raised.

In some areas there should be local opportunity to discuss whether

or not there should be a particular method of weed control. Now I can't

answer that generally. It's a situation where we're going to allow for

more local consideration and we'll listen to the local people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister would now be

able to answer my question about equipment, machinery and supply and

material, supplies and utilities.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's hear the question specifically again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thought you'd been working on it for the

last 20 minutes. The question is this: because of the variation in the

heading, what I took as last year to be $220,000 — what we voted last

year — occurs here as $135,955. Now there's been a change in the things

you throw under this heading and I'd like to know on what basis it's

been made.

There's no way we can compare this year's expenditures with any

previous year when not only are they consolidated, as you talked about

earlier, but the headings are so changed around and chopped around that

it's impossible to trace.

So I'd like to know how you've come to the decision in item 50 —

materials, supplies and utilities — and how this differs from last

year's item 16 — equipment, machinery and supplies.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are there any other questions, Mr. Chairman?

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to discuss, just for a minute, 4H Clubs

and other prizes and awards. It was 25.4 last year supposedly and 26.9

this year. My understanding is that there should have been an

accelerated programme to develop or have the opportunity to develop 4H

Club activities in the lower mainland and in some of the metropolitan

areas.

I'd like to know if this money is to be spent solely for prizes and

awards or are there going to be some types of other monetary

contributions to 4H Clubs. Does this include the government's

contribution towards the PNE in terms of 4H activities? How, in fact,

is the expansion of 4H Clubs coming along, and has, in fact, the

government given any thought, in light of the fact that they seem to

like to pay everybody, to offering some form of expenses or

remuneration to people that oversee or are leaders in 4H Clubs?

This is a major problem because they are farmers themselves. They

have to work long hours. They've got a lot of problems and they want to

give to the 4H but there is a lack of leadership. There are lots of

young people that would like to belong and I wonder whether the

Minister has thought of doing this, or expanding his programme, and if

so where would the funds be for it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the 4H programme at the P.N.E.,

it is federally sponsored, not provincially. The nominal increase,

relatively nominal increase in this amount, is because of the fact that

the new programme really hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Now whether

it will pick up during the year I don't know. But there is sufficient

money in here, at the rate at which it looks as though we will get

going, the recently announced programme will be covered by this amount.

The matter of paying community-minded people who have been working

with 4H, students or 4H children in the past, has never come to my

attention. No one has asked for it. Up to now it would seem that the

people doing it feel that they are doing something they want to do for

the sake of doing it themselves, rather than getting any kind of

remuneration for it.

Certainly I don't think it would be my position to initiate

discussions with them as to whether or not they should get it, or how

much they should get for it. They like to do it for the sake of doing

and I like to think that some people in the community are prepared to

put that kind of effort and that kind of time into what is a very

worthwhile programme.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I wouldn't disagree with the Minister on

that, and I'd be the last person to initiate payment. But I do feel

that some of the problems are that they do put a lot of time in and

they're glad to do it, but when it comes to transporting these young

people on trips, all the money has to be generated locally, as I

understand it, and so often these groups are in small communities where

their sole source of revenue for all of the development programmes is

from a very small group of people.

I don't want the Minister to misunderstand. I'm not suggesting you

pay them, but I'm suggesting that perhaps there should be some

provision for matching grants or third grants to help cover the

expenses of people so that these children can get around to local fairs

and displays. It doesn't have to be a next door situation.

There's no question that 4H club activities can play a tremendously

interesting and beneficial role in young people in the future, more so

probably than

[ Page 723 ]

they have in the past. Because this organization is

a problem and because a lot of the 4H time is spent raising money, if

there could be some incentive perhaps on a group basis to help pay the

expenses. I think the Minister would find this helpful.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, as I said, I've never been asked for

this so I've not given it any consideration at all. My own personal

experience with 4H is that usually they get together and the leaders

provide cars and transport the children in that way. I've never been

asked for anything else beyond that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there's the item here for

advertising in publications of $200,700 and it's the same this year as

last year. I checked out last year's figures and we never voted

anything for advertising at all. I presume it's a reference to B.C.

food promotion which is another expenditure which apparently is not

cross referenced.

I would like the confirmation of the Minister on that, and I wonder

whether he would indicate whether this programme is to continue. In my

mind it appears to be in limbo if it's left at the same level. I feel

that much of the expenditure in past years has not been very beneficial

to the agricultural communities. It has not made any substantial

increase in the amount of B.C. produce eaten in British Columbia by

British Columbians and I wonder whether he'd like to give us the

benefit of the department's cost benefit analysis of the advertising

under the B.C. food promotion from past years. I have heard grave

doubts as to whether it's very valuable at all.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As to whether the programme is very valuable?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Whether the advertising is — well is it the same programme, for one thing?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well it's a similar programme. The

provision for this last year was $200,000. This year the comparable

provision would be $250,000. The amount of advertising in publications,

the amount that is going to be spent on advertising alone is in this.

In addition there are staff members involved in the programme, but the

total expenditure in the programme is going up by $50,000.

We think the programme is well worthwhile. It's new and we're still

developing it. One reason that it isn't considerably larger is that

there's some different ideas being tried and different emphasis on the

advertising programme, so we're still to some extent feeling our way in

what is a new programme. This is the second year of operation, and

that's as far as I want it to go in the second year.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just if the Member wouldn't

mind.... I noticed the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) is in

the House. I want to apologize to the House and I didn't want to do it

until he was here because he asked me a very specific question about

the funds for car insurance that I was led to believe was not in these

estimates. It is indeed here, the Member was quite correct. It's in

vote 5. It's in code 20. The amount I can't give you. I can't tell you

how much that is but I will get that information.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, can I take from the

Minister's reply that we are cutting down on the amount of money which

last year went to B.C. food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, up to $202,500. Some is in advertising, some is in salaries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In other words the B.C. food promotion is now split up and we can no longer see it as a separate item? Is that the case?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. You'd have to ask me how much we are going to spend on food promotion — it will be $250,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well this is a difficulty. Can I ask him

then if we last year spent $200,700 on advertising in publications,

where the other publications and other advertising came from? I'm not

too sure. It seems to me that last year we spent $200,000 on food

promotion and I had assumed that it had been directly transferred to

this advertising in publications vote. If that is the case somehow or

another there are other moneys which perhaps should have been included

in that last year's figure because it's impossible to find where it

might have come from.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well the figure here, advertising and

publications, includes all of the advertising in all of the

publications, including bulletins put out by the department that are

associated with the production and marketing programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Part of the advertising.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did we spend $200,000 last year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: $20,000 or $200,000?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps my question isn't clear enough. On the lefthand column about four

[ Page 724 ]

down on item 40 you have $200,700 for advertising

in publications. What I'm trying to find out is that if that was what

we voted last year for this particular thing, where has the extra money

gone? Because you mentioned a number of other things such as

publications that come from your office in great numbers and flood my

mail box when I'm not at home.

These things are no doubt very valuable but the fact of the matter

is that it appears to me looking at last year's figures that we voted a

lot more for this type of advertising in publications and actually it

is indicated in this year's figures.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, last year I suppose you didn't really

see this figure in front of you when you voted for advertising and

publications. You didn't see the figure $200,700 — that's a

reconstituted figure. But that figure represents all of the advertising

and publication money that was voted for my department a year ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In B.C. food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Partly. The advertising that was going to

be under B.C. food promotion is included in this figure and is again

this year. Wages that were involved, salaries that were involved in the

B.C. food promotion programme, are included in this $200,700 and they

are also included — sorry, not the salaries. The salaries are not

included, they've been moved up to salaries. But last year when you saw

the figure for food promotion you saw one round amount of $200,000. Now

the $200,000 has indeed been spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There was one home economics person that worked with the programme last year, that was included.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is there not a

nutritionistic programme, if that's the correct term and it probably is

not, under this vote or under your department? My question is, Mr.

Minister, do we find out about the nutritionistic programme in the

Province of B.C. through you or through the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Health.

Vote 5 approved.

On vote 6: agricultural and rural development programme, $4,422,000.

MR. SMITH: In looking over the detail of this particular vote

I'd like to direct the Minister's attention to the amount of money made

available for ARDA programmes. It's approximately the same as last year

— $4,400,000 or a little better — but in the detail of votes 1 to 6

there is a wide variation in what was allocated last year and the

comparable amount for this year.

For instance, last year for irrigation and farm water supply the

vote was $2 million, this year it's $2.5 million so that's up $500,000.

Resource processing facilities was $400,000; it's now $1,200,000, up

$800,000. Then the item right below this, farm drainage, last year had

$1,600,000, now down to $300,000 so that's a drop of $1,300,000.

Would the Minister try to correlate the programme so that I could

understand exactly what is going on? Does that mean that you're

actually cutting back on the farm drainage programme by $1.3 million,

or does it mean that you have just shifted it to somewhere else?

Perhaps the Minister could give me some idea of the detail on this.

I see the total figure is about the same, but certainly there is wide

variation and discrepancy within each individual vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the areas

where the new form is quite different from the old one. Under the old

one you would have had one vote, $5.5 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, look at your last year's estimates

that you've been referring to. You have one figure — $5.5 million. Here

we have half a page showing some details of the programme — information

that you didn't have before. As far as the specific work, you will

appreciate that these projects take something like two years to get

rolling, and by this time of year we know with a fair degree of

certainty what projects will come on line in the year ahead. They all

have to be negotiated with Ottawa, so we can give information. We know

ahead of time just what projects we are going to be working on in the

year ahead. The figures are different, because of these particular

projects. Now, next year the emphasis might be on drainage, in

co-operation with the federal government.

MR. SMITH: If I might pursue this just for a moment, as I

understand the figures as you have recorded them in the vote here,

there is actually going to be $1.3 million less spent on projects for

farm drainage in this fiscal year than there was in the prior fiscal

year. That's what your vote shows — a decrease from $1.6 million to

$300,000, So in that particular programme, whatever it may have been

that was completed last year, you are now cutting back on

[ Page 725 ]

that particular phase of the development. Is that right?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not really a phase, but it means that

last year there were — I don't know the details — some pretty heavy

farm drainage programmes on line, in co-operation with the federal

government. This year it would appear that there are heavier irrigation

and resource processing facilities projects on line. Now, as I say,

this year we are working on this year's projects, and we are also

planning the following year's, and it could well be that the following

year will be irrigation again.

MR. SMITH: The resource processing facilities vote is up

$800,000 from the previous year. This would indicate plans for, I

presume, additional processing facilities. Can you give me some

indication of what those facilities are? What programmes have actually

been approved for this year?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise

one quick point. I hope I'm under the right vote, but it is another

example of the awesome power that this government has taken upon

itself. This is contained in the kind of thing that this government

does with a single stroke of the pen — contained in the resume of

orders-in-council of February 26, where I see that the Peckham's Lake

bull control area and the Maycook-Rampart bull control area have been

cancelled. With a single stroke of the pen they've been cancelled.

I want the Minister to tell us if the bulls are running rampant in

the Peckham's Lake bull control area and in the Maycook-Rampart bull

control area.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A question was asked on the

resource-processing facilities. The Tofino fishery project was approved

last year and it is expected that the money will be spent this year.

There was the Bulkley Valley Forest Products programme that was

approved last year. There was another forest industry project — these

are special ARDA programmes but the money shows in here.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Just one question. I know that

really it isn't under this vote at all, but the headings of "rural

development, land use," are used here. It is a problem that exists in

Omineca, that the land that is available — that is, the raw land,

uncultivated or uncleared — is being reserved for only people who are

already farming. They either must have a minimum of 40 acres or 80 per

cent, whichever is the greatest amount of land under cultivation.

I know, Mr. Minister, that you have no control over this, but it

does cause me great anxiety to know that I have great numbers of

potential farmers in my area who, because they aren't financially in a

position to buy an existing farm, are now prohibited by this from going

into the farming industry, and taking a piece of raw land and

developing it. I'm very anxious that the Minister might be able to

negotiate with his counterparts in the other branches of the cabinet to

make available some of this land to potential farmers.

I think it is a shame that a man who doesn't have those funds isn't

able to get a piece of land to bring into production, because this is

how the existing farms were brought in in the first place. The land

freeze and what-have-you have made it that much more difficult.

Somehow or another I would like to encourage at least people who are

bona fide farmers. Many of the people who moved into our area, like the

average fellow who arrived maybe a few years back, worked for a few

years until they accumulated enough assets to maybe get themselves a

little piece of land. Today it is even more difficult because of the

high cost.

I know that it is only because of a related incident pertaining to

rural development that assistance in the rural areas and communities

for improvement of income.... This is one of the things I referred to.

I think there should be some relationship between my problem and the

vote we are discussing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as far as assistance for the

individual like that goes, with respect to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), surely he wouldn't

expect me to bring political pressure to bear on the Minister of Lands.

But you are talking about individual projects, and these are more

appropriate under votes 7 and 8, and vote 6 — ARDA — and we must have a

minimum of seven people being affected by the project before it can be

considered as an ARDA project. There are other qualifications as well,

but it must affect a minimum group of seven. But we can talk about

special help for individuals under votes 7 and 8.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: financial and special assistance programme, $3,471,436.

MR. SMITH: I would think that this is the vote under which I would have to take these particular matters up with the Minister.

Earlier on in his estimates, when we were on the Minister's salary

vote, I brought up a number of points. I don't recall ever receiving

any answers to them at that time, except to take up with the Minister

under specific votes, and that's what I'd like to do now.

There's the matter which I have brought to the Minister's attention with respect to veterinary clinics

[ Page 726 ]

in the province, and the establishment of them, or

at least that assistance or loans be made available to veterinarians

who have located in the Province of British Columbia.

Will the Minister give any consideration to making either loans or

financial assistance available to veterinarians who wish to establish

clinics? If so, has he a programme in mind, or what is contemplated in

that respect? At the same time, will the Minister give us some

indication as to what he thinks would be in the future for veterinary

students who wish to go to college? Certainly they cannot get their

education in the Province of British Columbia at the present time so

they must go to other provinces. Would he consider loans or grants to

students who qualify and have a genuine interest in becoming

veterinarians so that they can help finance their education?

The third matter is the one I brought before the Minister also, and

that is the meat packing plant at Fort St. John, known as Superior

Meats. I pointed out when I spoke earlier that the owner is in severe

financial distress. I don't intend to elaborate on the details again,

because I think it is well known. He does need advice, and I suggest

that he requires additional capital to modernize his plant to a

standard where federal inspection would be possible.

Is there anyone available from the Department of Agriculture who

could give this man some advice? I know there have been people up

there, but the type of people who have inspected the plant were more

concerned about the t's being crossed and the i's being dotted than

they were about giving the man anything that he could really hang his

hat on as to what he should really do in the way of modernization.

It's a new plant, a new building but there are certain things that

are deficient. So is there someone available through your department,

or if not through your department, through the federal Department of

Agriculture who you could bring in to assist this man in getting him

pointed at least in the right direction and analyse what it would take

to solve his problem? He's invested a great deal of his own money and

he stands to lose everything as it is right now, and the district

stands to lose by a very much needed small business enterprise.

MR. GARDOM: Yesterday I asked the Minister some questions

dealing with the acquisition by himself, representing the government,

of some shares of South Peace Dehy Products, Ltd. I asked him what the

economic projections were, why the government is proposing to enter

into this endeavour, and so forth and so on. And he said he'd answer

that when we came to this vote. We have now come to the vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: (Mike not on) ...to the vote, but we have

indeed come to the proper vote. As far as the vet clinics are

concerned, one of the things I had in mind when we were discussing the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act

was that this would be

an Act under which the vet clinic — not really

an industry, but a service to the agricultural industry — could very

well apply. I did assure people who wrote and asked me whether I

thought it would be appropriate that, indeed, it would.

Vet students: you know the policy of grants the Department of

Education has for the colleges. As far as special grants to students,

we have given that any consideration yet. We've rather gone the other

route of making money available to enable vets to become established

once they become vets. I'm not sure about the idea... We really haven't

considered the idea of giving grants to one group of students going

through out university training system — whether it be here or in

another province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, student loans are available. A

student loan-programme is available. My point is: it's the same for the

vet students as it is for any other students. The door is open to them

just to the same extent that it is for others. I think I would not want

to change that, really.

The meat packing plant in Fort St. John: The operation of that plant

was curtailed, if you like, by the Department of Health. I'm going to

suggest that you might want to ask questions when the Department of

Health's estimates are up. But I'm also going to suggest that if you'd

like to come and review some of the correspondence or reports I have,

prior to discussing on the floor of the House with the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), then I'd welcome an opportunity to discuss it

with you.

Advice: Advice is available, but it's a matter sometimes of

persuading people that they should follow the advice. Certainly,

speaking in general, this type of enterprise would be appropriately

assisted under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act .

In this specific instance, I would appreciate it if you would put

specific questions to the Minister of Health. But before putting that

first, come and have a look at some of the material.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. Yes, the economic projections

were actually started by the previous administration to some extent.

They were continued under the present administration in the Department

of Industrial Development when the project was determined to be

economically feasible. Not a great...

[ Page 727 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The alfalfa cubing: Not a great money

maker, but at least marginally good from a economic point of view.

Apart from the economics of it, though.... And of course, this is

history. Since then there have been runaway prices of forage crop

generally, and now it would be a real winner regardless.

But quite apart from wanting to get that first plant on line — and

as I say, the projections were good but not excellent. Quite apart from

wanting to get it going, the need to get plants like this in areas of

the province where we can grow forage quite efficiently — it can't grow

grain, where people should be growing forage rather than trying to grow

grains — led us to believe that this particular one should get off to

as early a start as possible and under as good conditions as possible

so that we could demonstrate and show to other groups interested in

going ahead with such plants in the province the best techniques for

using B.C. material — the best equipment, as determined by our studies,

that could be used. We hope there'll be a number of these operating in

the relatively near future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's not so much labour-intensive as

using farmers to grow alfalfa that they can sell only when they collect

their crop insurance premium. So it's not a case of creating jobs. It's

a matter of growing forage, which we desperately need, and using

farmland more productively to grow forage rather than grain which is

very marginal in some of those areas.

MR. GARDOM: In numbers, how many do you envisage it will involve?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the South Peace Dehy, in the plant itself, something like 10.

MRS. JORDAN: In your projections what did you anticipate the

return per ton would be to the producer? I'm sorry I haven't got his

name here, but the individual who was going to put one of these in the

Okanagan — did he discuss it with your department? Because he came up

with a figure of $20 per ton to the producer, and then the right to

purchase back the quantity at $48 a ton, I believe it was, in

pelletized form. There was no interest on the part of producers at all.

I think he could only sign up three people.

But I'll like to know the figures for the north and also whether

this individual came to see you, and how these returns would compare.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The figures as I recall them — on the

growers who signed contracts, of course — but the figures, as I recall

them, ran from $18 to $20 for the crop standing in the field, and the

growers seemed quite happy to grow at that price. But beyond that, of

course, they own a major portion of the plant. The people who have

signed contracts and deliver their crop to that plant are shareholders

in the plant itself.

I've never heard before of the buy-back figure. That's a new one. I don't know about that.

MRS. JORDAN: I think it was $48 a ton, pelletized, up to the

amount that you delivered. But are they short-term contracts? Are they

two-year contracts?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm trying to recall. I think it was

three-year contracts they signed. But, of course, they own the plant so

it would be in their own interest to renew the contracts there would be

changes in price, of course.

MRS. JORDAN: Just on this point. In the contracts this

gentleman was offering our producers there was a clause whereby if

their equipment broke down on your land, then you were responsible for

the cost of the equipment. I just wondered if your staff was aware if

this was a traditional inclusion in this type of contract or not.

Certainly this was a factor that concerned our producers because they

had no guarantee that the equipment might not have been hanging

together by threads when onto their property.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The particular plan that you're talking

about was privately owned. I'm talking about the north — the Peace

River one. This one was a private operation. They tried to put together

plans that would interest the government and would get some financial

encouragement. So far we have not been very favourably impressed with

reports that we've had, and at this point have not agreed to go ahead

with any kind of help at all for that project. One of the reasons is

that we feel the growers should have some involvement in the plant so

that there will be some inducement for them to send their crops. At the

very least the fellow who's proposing to build a plant would have to

have fairly long-term contracts to supply materials so that the plant

will have access to materials. None of this has been forthcoming in

satisfactory form. That's where that project lies.

MRS. JORDAN: I think this is probably true, and quite a good

observation. But in your studies has it really been felt that there is

opportunity for the producers themselves to develop a viable

pelletizing plant in the north

section of the Okanagan — from

[ Page 728 ]

Vernon right up to Revelstoke?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There was a study that identified this as one of the areas where a plant could be quite successful.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to know, in item 20, what was shifted

— the $105,000 that was taken out. I'd like to know what's left back in

— what the $45,000 in that vote is. There's a $105,000 reduction — what

came out of there?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Crop insurance has been moved out of there:

it was vote 9 last year. Crop insurance is the thing that has been

taken out of that "professional and special services."

MR. MORRISON: What's still in there then? What is it made up of now?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If you look at salaries, the professional and special services, codes 01 and code 20 are comparable.

MR. MORRISON: Say that again.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Salaries last year are $48,000 and then

$150,000 in professional and special services. This year we're hiring

our own staff to do the crop insurance work, so the figure shows up in

salaries rather than in professional and special services, which are

services that are hired. That clear?

MR. MORRISON: That part of it's clear, but I'm still

concerned as to what the $45,000 that is still in item 20 is made up

of. That's not clear. What are the professional services that are left

in there?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For example, at the moment in order to get

one of the Acts that come under this going, we have hired a man to

start work on the farm credit Act regulations. He's not on staff, but

he's been hired to start the ball rolling while we do hire staff to

develop the programme. So he is one of the items that would come under

this vote.

Vote 7 approved.

MR. WALLACE: To me it is important that we should have some information from the Minister on this vote, in particular as to how the Land Commission Act

which was debated so bitterly in principle is functioning in practice —

or not functioning, as the case may be. The Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) could have very well said

yesterday or the day before that we all talked on the principle of

supporting the preservation of agricultural land and that the

consequence of supporting that principle was to give the farmer an

economic return and a fair reward for his labours.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said that already farm

income support programmes of one kind or another added up to $15

million at this point in time — I can't remember the exact figure;

perhaps the Minister can correct me. He pointed out that the dairy

farmers were to receive farm income support under the income assurance

plan programme first. We know other producers are in the line-up

seeking the same kind of implementation of support.

I'd like to ask the Minister one or two questions in light of the

fact that in Alberta, I understand, there is something in the order of

$100 million a year provided for support of one kind or another.

Thinking back to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound's comments

that we are already up to $15 million, in the light of this basic

philosophy that we preserve farmland under the terms of the Land Commission Act by taking away from the farmer the inflated price of his land if it were resold for other purposes, which is exactly what the Land Commission Act does, we would assure that he, on the other hand, received a fair income and a fair return for his labours.

Now, have we any projected figures beyond this year or next year or

the year after as to where these income support programmes are going to

end in terms of dollars, maybe even — to use the slang phrase — in

ballpark figures? If it's $15 million at this point in time, what do we

think it will be by this time next year and the next year?

The point I'm trying to get at rather laboriously is that the people

of this province by and large have said they support the concept

inherent in the Land Commission Act

that agricultural land shall be preserved. But to do that, there is a

price. I just want to know, in some kind of approximate way, what the

figures will be for farm income support on an ever-widening scale. I

want to know how much of the cost is going to be reflected in the price

to the consumer or how much is going to be reflected in straight

subsidy of one kind or another out of consolidated revenue.

I think these are pretty basic questions and they have some pretty

far-reaching ramifications. As was mentioned earlier in debate, many of

these other people in the other industries are applying for support

through the farm income assurance programme. Is it something that is

going to grow like Topsy, or are there, not actuarial figures, but some

kind of guidelines by which the Minister is making decisions and

developing these programmes? On that kind of basis, what is the likely

financial cost to be? How much more year by year by year? Are there,

taking the optimistic outlook, times when the people in these

programmes will not need the actual provisions?

[ Page 729 ]

The theory is that in tough times, when costs are rising and the

cost of production is greater than the price they receive, the

programme supports them with subsidies. On the other hand, sections of

some of these other industries, whether it's tomatoes or hogs or

whatever, are getting ready to seek such a programme. Is it going to be

just an ever-increasing payout of the programme which evidently means a

larger and larger amount of consolidated revenue being allocated to the

Minister's department year after year for this purpose?

If that's the way it is, my reading of continuing inflation and the

difficulties of the farmer meeting the cost of his production year

after year after year, there will be more segments of the agricultural

industry applying for this kind of programme. The amounts of money that

will have to be put in out of consolidated revenue will be a

steadily-increasing sum. If this is the case, I think the people of

British Columbia should find out as accurately and as regularly as

possible that this, in effect, is part of the price of the Land Commission Act .

Another consequence has been mentioned in this House already.

However laudable and wise it might be to freeze farmland, there is

little doubt that the Act in itself has further helped to drive up the

price of land available for housing. I'm sure we'll get into this when

we debate housing. I'm not suggesting for a moment this is the only

reason costs have rocketed as far as the cost of housing is concerned.

But it seems to make pretty reasonable sense that there is only so much

land; if you restrict the land available for housing you increase the

value of the land still available for housing. So I would like the

Minister's comment on that and the degree to which he feels this is a

realistic and logical consequence of the land Act.

I've had many people complain to me that there are parcels of land

in which a portion is agricultural but another portion is completely

unsuitable for agriculture. These parts of the total parcel should

surely be readily available for housing development or whatever other

type of non-agricultural development seems suitable. In that regard, I

would like to know from the Ministe