British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, February 26, 1974 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 4th Session)

30p 04s 740226p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

509 ]

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Increased quotas for Okanagan broiler growers. Mr. McClelland — 509

Preservation of the Birks Building. Mr. Wallace — 510

Broiler permits in Okanagan. Mr. McClelland — 511

Cheque from Seattle City Light. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 512

Can-Cel recovery plant. Mr. Curtis — 512

Civil service superannuation fund. Mr. Wallace — 512

B.C. Hydro assets. Mr. McClelland — 512

B.C. Fishermen under provincial jurisdiction. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 512

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 513

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 513

Mr. Phillips — 513

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 515

Mr. Curtis — 516

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 517

Mrs. Jordan — 518

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 523

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 525

Mr. Curtis — 530

Mr. Fraser — 531

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 533

Mr. McGeer — 535

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 538

Mr. McClelland 539

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 540

Mr. Gardom — 540

Mr. Lewis — 541

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we start today I'd like to

point out a practice that was followed, unfortunately, the other day.

When the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) rose to table

some further documents, he made the statement to the House:

"Mr. Speaker, I have no other recourse but to ask

leave of the House to file additional information related to my

statements in the House that leaks have been characteristic of the

business initiative of this government."

Now, the Clerks are unable, without reading documents, to find out

what they relate to when they are tabled. Therefore it's essential that

Members state explicitly what the document is that they are tabling, so

that it may be noted properly in the Journals of the House. I would ask Members to co-operate in that regard so we can do that. Thank you.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

sitting on the floor of the House is Mr. Kenneth Proposki, who is the

MLA for Edmonton-Kingsway and the chairman of the Alberta government's

task force dealing with health and welfare, and he introduced the

concept in a bill regarding community health and social services. I met

him last week when I was there. I'd like the House to welcome him.

Mrs. Louise Paproski is sitting in the ladies' gallery.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the gallery

this afternoon are two members of the North Vancouver Teachers

Association executive, who are over here today to see the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself. Their names are Cliff

Boldt and Klaus Spikermann, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a couple from Grande

Prairie, Alberta, Mr. and Mrs. Tachit. I understand that they're here

to see if they could join with British Columbia. (Laughter.)

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Seated in the gallery are a group

of tenants from the beautiful constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, and along with

them is a Mr. Bolton who today is celebrating his 90th birthday. We live very

long in Vancouver-Burrard. I'd like the House to join me in saying "Happy

birthday" to him and welcome to the other members of his group.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the House today

the skipper and the prominent crew man of the Western Warrior, two

people who were very hospitable to the group from the Legislature and

who took the Premier out fishing last summer. I'd like you to welcome

them here today.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

on behalf of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who isn't

here, I'd like to welcome everyone who hasn't been welcomed.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

INCREASED QUOTAS FOR

OKANAGAN BROILER GROWERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Premier.

With regard to broiler growing in the province — and I hope you enjoyed

your bacon and eggs this morning, Mr. Premier — did you suggest or

order that two broiler growers in the Okanagan area be given quotas of

20,000 birds per year and that a committee be struck to decide which

two of the 11 producers in the Okanagan be given those increased quotas?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I did not order

anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers. There is dispute in

this area, as there is in the egg-producing area. I met in my office

with some MLAs, the Minister and some staff, and I said: "Gentlemen,

please work out some solution to this problem." Earlier, as I reported

to this House, I said that the Egg Marketing Board were acting like

children. I've long ago given up marital counselling, and I regret that

I attempted it again recently.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's the first time I've learned that children get married in the Province of British Columbia. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Many children do. As a result they end up in divorce.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Anyway, I will not, of course, comment on

that as a bachelor. May I ask the Premier whether he did direct or

propose that a committee of three be appointed to allocate the broiler

production permits for 11 producers in the Kamloops-Okanagan area in

the amount of 20,000 birds per year?

[ Page 510 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not direct that a

committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas. I understand

that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was dealing with

that particular problem.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the

light of a statement sworn by affidavit by Mr. W.H.L. Brunsdon, and

contained in this morning's paper, may I ask the Premier whether he

stands by his statement to the House today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Hon. Member to look at page 148

of the rules that bind us hereto on parliamentary questions, where it

says that you are not to impugn the accuracy of information conveyed to

the House by a Minister, or that you are to refer to answers to

questions of the current session, and you are doing just that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am in

no way impugning that the Premier did not tell the truth to this House.

My request was only whether, in the time that has passed since his

previous reply to my question, there is any other information that has

come to his knowledge. I only ask, Mr. Speaker, whether he stands by

the statement, as stated by him yesterday, that the members of the Egg

Marketing Board were not asked or ordered, or suggested to be ordered,

to do anything. It's in no way a suggestion that any Minister in this

House has said anything but the truth. I just asked whether or not new

information is available.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wish to answer the question. The Member

refers to an affidavit of which I do not have a copy. But I read the

copy in this morning's paper, and after every

section in the affidavit,

it claims to have said that such and such was said, or words to that

effect. Now, I cannot be responsible for what someone's opinion is of

what was said or words to that effect.

I have conversations with many people. But I recall distinctly in

this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order, or did

not order any solution. I suggested that they were acting like

children, and apparently they are continuing to act like children. I

suggested that they get together with their lawyers and see if they

could work out some solution. That is what they did. I did not order,

as I said yesterday, any solution.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I'd

like to get back to the broiler growers for a moment. The Premier

hasn't accused them of acting like children — as yet, anyway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're swinging their scythes, though.

MR. McCLELLAND: But, Mr. Speaker, the question I'd like to

ask is that during the meeting which the Premier refers to with the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and other Members of the Legislature —

of the NDP caucus, at least — at any time was there any threat made to

demand the resignation of the Agriculture Minister if you did not

intervene personally to establish these new quotas?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with any

threat to demand the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. I said

at that meeting that I am not familiar with the subject — of

agriculture, and because I pleaded ignorance at that meeting, I

suggested that the Minister go back to his office and try to work out

some solution for this problem.

MR. McCLELLAND: You never intervened directly, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not, I have not and I

will not order any solution to the egg and chicken war in the Province

of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member. On the same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think so. A further supplementary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we just blow a few more feathers around and get on with it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's the feathers I'd like to comment on. (Laughter.)

In view of the contradiction in the sworn testimony, may I ask the

Premier whether he intends to take action for the libelous remarks that

have been printed in the Vancouver Province this morning, also last

week, and further whether he intends to take legal action against the

people concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That question is quite improper. What anyone does outside the House is their own business.

PRESERVATION OF THE BIRKS BUILDING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if I could change

the subject, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary whether he has

given any consideration to using the provisions of the historic sites

protection Act to preserve the Birks Building in Vancouver?

[ Page 511 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Could

I inquire if the Minister has received any communication from Vancouver

City Council on this subject?

HON. MR. HALL: Not recently, Mr. Member, as my memory serves

me, but I'll certainly look into it. I remember having something, oh,

it must be 18 months ago now, from a committee, In fact one or two of

my colleagues were, I think, pictured next to the clock. But I'll

certainly look into my correspondence of the last couple of days.

ICBC HANDLING OF DAMAGED VEHICLES

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

the Minister of Transport and Communications: Is the Minister now in a

position to announce plans with respect to handling of damaged vehicles

after March 1 — with that deadline less than three days away.

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

I haven't got the details with me, but there are claims centres, there

are phone numbers and so on, that I understood we were going to start

publicizing about today. As I say, I haven't got them with me here.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the

Minister's intention to use in any way the motor vehicle testing

stations which are established in some parts of British Columbia on an

interim basis for this purpose?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying to recollect. It seems to me

there's one motor vehicle testing station — I can't remember which one

— which is on the cards for being used. But only the one; I think the

rest are completely separate sites.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. The Minister cannot tell us just where that one is. Is it in Vancouver or Victoria?

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not start a guessing game.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not in Victoria, as I recollect it.

BROILER PERMITS IN OKANAGAN

MR. McCLELLAND: My question is to the Minister of

Agriculture. Would the Minister advise the House if he approved a

policy outlining the establishment of 11 new growers in the Okanagan

with initial permits for 5,000 broilers in the first year to be

increased by 5,000 per year for 5 years? Was that policy approved by

you and your department?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The policy was

discussed by me and my department with the broiler board and the

broiler board agreed to adopt that policy, except the figure is not 5,

it's 8; 11 permits at 8,000 for production and then secondary permits

of a further 5 when the processing plant becomes ready for process.

MR. McCLELLAND: That policy has been approved by the board.

HON. MR. STUPICH: By the board? Yes.

MR. McCLELLAND: By your department?

HON. MR. STUPICH: My department has no authority to approve

or disapprove. My department does have the authority to talk to the

board, to discuss with them the advisability of increasing production

in various areas of the province where there is some production or

where there is no production. We certainly have the authority to

discuss this with them, but as far as approving the policy or even

arriving at the specific policy, this is still the prerogative of the

board.

MR. McClelland: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Is it

not true that either you or your department sent a telegram to the B.C.

Broiler Marketing Board on December 22, telling them that those

established figures were cancelled, and ordering new quotas for the

industry?

HON. MR. STUPICH: My department, as I recall, did send a

telegram asking them to hold back on certain orders they had issued

until we had an opportunity to discuss with them the possibility of

establishing a broiler production industry in the Interior of the

province. I don't recall the wording of the telegram, but I do know

that word did go to the broiler board that we wanted them to withhold

issuing further permits in the Fraser Valley until we had an

opportunity to discuss the Interior production.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one further short supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, if I may. I just want to ask the Minister if he had any

intervention from the Premier or the Premier's office on this question

— ordering that telegram or any other action with regard to quotas in

the Interior?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't recall any discussion with the Premier around that time about this

[ Page 512 ]

question. I know it's a question that came up in

the fall session — several questions were raised about it then. I know

then I indicated to the House it was departmental policy and government

policy, indeed, that there should be broiler production in the Interior

of the province.

When we discussed with the broiler producers the processing plant,

when we were talking about a processing plant in the Interior, we

realized there would have to be production in the Interior. I don't

recall the Premier being involved in any way in December. I'm not

denying there was some discussion, but I just don't recall any

discussion with the Premier at that time.

CHEQUE FROM SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: may I ask whether the latest rental cheque from

Seattle City Light for Skagit Valley land rental has been cashed?

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

It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it has not been cashed.

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

supplementary, whether the British Columbia government is holding this

cheque; whether it's been returned to the State of Washington officials

or Seattle City Light officials, or whether it's been placed in some

trust account?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A supplementary,

Mr. Speaker, to the previous question. Could the Minister outline what

steps have been taken to terminate the contract, what legal steps,

either working with Seattle City Light or with Ottawa?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we keep trying to unravel Ottawa's position, Mr. Speaker, that's part of the complications.

MR. GIBSON: It's the position of the government I'm asking about, Mr. Speaker.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think public statements in the past

have indicated the position of the government. I don't think that's

changed in any substantial way.

MR. SPEAKER: This sounds too large for a question period, more in the form of a Minister's statement.

CAN-CEL RECOVERY PLANT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources: The question of the recovery plant at the Can-Cel

operation in Prince Rupert, could he indicate when this work will be

completed and the recovery plant in operation?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Minister of Finance, in light of

recent purchase of further B.C. Telephone Company shares, has the civil

service superannuation fund made any representations to achieve

position on the board of directors of B.C. Tel?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Member.

B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) whether he's had time yet to check into the

problem with regard to disposal of surplus B.C. Hydro assets, whether

he's come up with any solutions? The question stands that we want to

have the contract called off if possible and the bids go out to tender.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Public Works): Yes, I've taken the matter up with Hydro and I hope to be able to give you an answer within the next two or three days.

B.C. FISHERMEN UNDER PROVINCIAL

JURISDICTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of

Labour what steps he has taken to have the British Columbia fishermen

taken under the British Columbia law with respect to labour disputes

and in particular ex-parte injunctions.

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

fishermen are not excluded from the provincial labour code and it's a

matter of federal jurisdiction in that instance. If the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers are prepared to petition the federal

government to give jurisdiction to the province, then the province

would be prepared to support that petition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I take it from the Minister's answer that

[ Page 513 ]

he himself and the government has initiated, has

taken no steps or initiated any action to bring these people under

British Columbia legislation?

HON. MR. KING: This is a matter for federal government policy

rather than provincial government policy. We are prepared as a

government to support the inclusion of the fishermen under provincial

jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction now resides with the federal

government. If the union seeks to have the federal government transfer

jurisdiction, then certainly we are prepared to support that move.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: Approximately two weeks ago, the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) took as notice

a question I asked regarding the supplying of newsprint to The Victoria Express .

I'm just wondering how much longer I would have to wait before that

Minister would be able to give me an answer, or should he hire some

more executive assistants to assist him with his work?

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that that would be an improper point of order. As you know, if you look in Beauchesne , you can ask a question but you can't demand an answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm realizing that, Mr. Speaker. I've asked several questions in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Just continue looking hopeful.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 3: Minister's office, $74,516.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I ask the Members to address

themselves to the form in which the Agriculture estimates are being

presented this year. It is the only department that is approaching it

this way, and we are doing it as an experiment. Other jurisdictions are

experimenting with this form; if the House finds it useful, then, of

course, we will slowly change into that direction. If the House doesn't

find it useful, we will not change. I ask the House to go along with

the experiment with this Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and this new form.

Perhaps the Minister himself will explain further as a member of the Treasury Board.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I thought it was going to go by, but someone wants to ask a question.

Just perhaps a little further on the form...the idea is to try to

make the vote more appropriate to the subject under discussion, to try

to channel the discussion in more with particular votes rather than

having everything under one special vote.

The actual number of votes has been reduced. If there are any

questions in the minds of the Members as to which or where last year's

votes are in this year's estimates, I would be quite pleased to answer

those.

If you turn to page N26 of the estimates — it is actually the last

sheet of the estimates — it will give you a detailed description of the

votes and the codes. At the heading of each of the votes, of course,

there is a general description as to what is included in each one of

these particular votes. I think with that I will leave it to respond to

the questions raised by the Members.

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

Minister's remarks with regard to the form, but he didn't explain to me

the meaning of what was happening on page N18, where there is no

breakdown in salaries in the Minister's office.

The cost of the Minister's office has been increased by some 35 per

cent, but I'm not sure just who's getting what. The Minister's salary

is not broken down as it is in all other departments, nor is the salary

of the executive assistant or the salaries of any clerks. If this is

going to be the form throughout that is going to be adopted, I don't

think that I could support it. However, maybe the Minister will answer

that question when he has the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, during the last spring session of the Legislature and,

indeed, again last fall, we heard a tremendous amount of talk about the

agricultural industry in the Province of British Columbia. If you will

recall, in the spring session one year ago there was a great bill

brought into this House: the infamous Bill 42, the purpose of which was

to preserve farmland for the agricultural industry.

At that time the Minister of Agriculture said, first of all, that to

preserve the agricultural industry we must preserve agricultural land;

so we are going to tie the farmer to his land and we are going to see

that the land is not alienated for any other use.

Then the Minister went on to say that "in the fall session of the

Legislature we will bring in legislation which will make..." I don't

wish to misquote him but I think he said something to the effect that,

"Now that we have preserved the land for agriculture, we will make

agriculture a viable economic industry in the Province of British

Columbia, which will give as much return to the farmer as if he had a

similar investment in any other industry."

So last fall we had legislation which was

[ Page 514 ]

introduced, supposedly, to do that. Some of the

legislation was brought in because of recommendations by the

agricultural committee which travelled throughout the province checking

into the industry, talking to various segments of the industry.

We had in the fall session past three main pieces of legislation. There was the Agricultural Credit Act , certain changes to the Agricultural Land Development Act and certain changes to the crop insurance Act. The other two main Acts were the Farm Income Assurance Act and the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act .

When this Legislature passed these three pieces of legislation, they

actually gave the Minister of Agriculture the power to do just about

anything that he desired to do to help the agricultural industry — to

spend any amount of money. There were no shackles put on him.

I remember arguing this in the fall session that there should be

some limitations put on the amount of money. However, as I look at the

budget, I find that maybe that wasn't necessary after all. The Minister

of Agriculture seems to have changed his mind sometime between the end

of the fall session and the bringing down of the budget.

Actually, we gave the Minister of Agriculture the keys to the vault

— right into the Minister of Finance's office without even knocking —

and the right to take any amount of money to support this industry in

this province that he desires.

Now when the budget came down, I noticed that there was very little

said in the budget about the agricultural industry, very little indeed.

There was a little bit on page 15 and another paragraph on page 16. But

the total for the entire agricultural industry, including two special

amounts of money of $10 million apiece, which were not in the regular

budget or in the regular estimate (it's to be taken out of surplus), a

total for the agricultural industry in British Columbia — a total! — of

$35 million, 1.6 per cent of the entire budget, including the special

appropriations.

I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, with all of the talk and all of

the legislation that was passed in the spring and fall sessions of the

Legislature, that this government would have put some money into the

agricultural industry. But I guess that I am going to be left with the

feeling, unless the Minister can change it, that it was all a great

deal of talk.

Just how much has this government that was going to do so

much...just how much has it done for agriculture? Ten million dollars —

not really in the budget, but a special appropriation — $10 million for

farm income assurance.

As far as I can gather, the dairy subsidy alone is going to require $16 million. That leaves already a deficit of $6 million.

Where is the money going to come from to stabilize prices in the fruit industry?

Where is the money going to come from to stabilize prices in the vegetable industry?

Where is the money going to come from to stabilize prices in the hog industry?

Where is the money going to come from to stabilize prices in the cattle industry in British Columbia?

Does the government have another method of stabilizing these industries?

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, indeed, to answer

me: does he plan on stepping in and partially taking over these

industries like he is doing with the broiler industry? Is this the

intention of the government? Of course, if he does that, you really

don't have to come to the Legislature; you just make an announcement

outside that you are going to set up a business, go into business with

some of the growers. You are going to look after processing their

product, and you are in business.

Another $10 million in the budget for the industry improvement fund;

$2.5 million of this is going to pan-ready poultry. Maybe it will be

Colonel Sanders next.

There is $1.5 million going to be required for the alfalfa dehy

plant in the Peace River area. My understanding is that there will be

at least three more plants needed, which would cost another $4.5

million.

Where is the money going to come from for the proposed fruit-packing house amalgamation in the Okanagan Valley?

Where is the money going to come from for the rapeseed processing

plants that are recommended to be established in the Peace River area?

And how many more secondary manufacturing plants are needed in the province to process agricultural products?

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to give credit where credit is due,

and that's a small start. It was nothing like we anticipated because of

all of the talk and all of the promises, but we passed another bill

last fall. That other bill was one that would have really done

something for the individual farmer, and I refer to the Agricultural Credit Act .

What, indeed, did the Minister of Agriculture say when this Act was

being passed through the Legislature? I would just like to refresh the

memory of some of you who were in the House when this very important

piece of legislation, known as Bill 44, was being passed.

Before I quote some of the Minister's remarks, I would like to point

out to the House why I feel this is probably one of the most important

pieces of agriculture legislation that was passed last fall. It is the

one piece of legislation that would allow a farmer to become more

independent. The application of the

[ Page 515 ]

Agricultural Credit Act was that a farm operator would be entitled to receive agricultural credit for any purpose

"relating to the purchase of livestock; or the

clearing, breaking, irrigating, draining, dyking, or fencing of land;

or the construction, alteration, or improvement of farm buildings; or

the purchase of agricultural implements and farm machinery."

Another very important one is the

"consolidation or other rearrangement

of debts or liabilities; or the purchase of lands or buildings; or the

development of a water supply; or such other purposes, including the

purchase of plant materials and supplies, the purchase of production

quotas, and the acquisition of working capital, relating to the

establishment, development, or operation of farms as the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe."

Now, this is the one piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that would

allow a farmer who had previously been having trouble to become

established, to become independent, and to assure production of future

foodstuffs in this province. Yet I have gone through the estimates time

and time again and I can find no money for this very important Act.

So I must be left with the thought that maybe this government is not

interested in making the farmer independent. It is not interested in

the farmer purchasing land or buildings. Through the other Acts, the

government is going to have their fingers into the operation, but the

very piece of legislation that would help the individual farmer to

become more independent, to improve his own operation, receives not one

red nickel.

This isn't what the Minister of Agriculture said last fall. He said in Hansard :

A need that was expressed more often by farmers in the

community coming before the select standing committee, more often by

farmers writing to me and by their representatives in making

submissions to me is the need for some rational way of handling the

question of farm credit. With that in mind, believing that we have

introduced very forward thinking with this particular bill before us

now, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 44.

By the Minister's own words, he has said that there were more

requests for this particular piece of legislation than any of the other

bills that he brought into the House. Now tell me, Mr. Chairman, why

there is no money made available for this very, very important piece of

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would draw the Hon. Member's attention to May , page 766, with regard to the administrative action of the estimates under consideration:

"The administrative action of a department is open to

debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving

legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

The Hon. Member may refer to legislation in discussing the

administrative aspects, but he should not discuss the legislation

itself, nor reflect upon it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's quite a ruling, but we are

discussing, as far as I am concerned, the Minister of Agriculture's

estimates. I want to know why there is no money in the budget to look

after this very, very important piece of legislation which, in the

Minister's own words, was one that he received more requests for than

any other piece of legislation brought in!

The purposes of the bill are very, very clear-cut. I certainly hope

that the Minister will be able to offer some explanation because there

are, in the province today, many farmers who need assistance in the

form of low-interest, long-term money to make their operation more

viable.

The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is quite simple. The price of

farm products, and the return from farm operations in this province

and, indeed, in Canada has been at an all-time low for the last 10

years. Farmers are not able to go to the regular credit sources to

obtain this money. The whole purpose of the legislation was to allow

the farmers to get some long-term, low-interest money to improve their

farming operations.

There certainly is a need, and it certainly is a good piece of

legislation, one of the best pieces of legislation that has been

passed, and yet there is no money for it — no money in the budget, no

money in the estimates.

I know right now, Mr. Chairman, of people in the cattle industry,

particularly in my area, who are having to sell off their cattle at

reduced prices in order to keep their farms going. They have been told

by the Department of Agriculture to go to the bank and get short-term

money and high-interest rates. Why pass legislation if you are not

going to back it up with some dollars?

I am not at this time going to go into anything further in the

departmental estimates until the Minister has had an opportunity to

advise me and advise the House why there is no money for this very,

very important piece of legislation.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Perhaps I can

just answer the one question. The Member's remarks might better have

been directed to votes, except that in this case he didn't find the

right vote, apparently. To comment first on the total amount allocated

to Agriculture, you might throw percentages around and say that there

isn't much increase. As I look at the figures, there was $11

[ Page 516 ]

million last year and $35 this year, which is a

substantial increase in the period of one year. So you might say it is

1.6 per cent of something — I'm not sure of what — but from $11 million

up to $35 million is a substantial increase in the period of one year.

I think to ask the department to try to gear itself up to spend more

than that in the course of one year would be to ask the department to

spend money simply for the sake of convincing people that we are

spending more, rather than trying to do a job for agriculture.

Very briefly, on the agricultural income programme, I just want to

correct the Member's phraseology, if you like. It is certainly not the

way I phrased it, and not the way I hope he's phrasing it in discussing

it when he talked about stabilizing prices.

There has been too much stability of prices when it comes to selling

farmers' products, and not enough stability of net income. Then again,

the Act itself was called the Agricultural Income Stabilization Act ,

with reference in the discussion of it to net income. We don't want to

stabilize prices, we don't want to fix prices, we want to improve the

farmers' net income position.

With respect to the amount of money available under the Agricultural Credit Act

for direct lending, and we will discuss this perhaps when we get to the

vote, there is some money in vote 7. You will recall that the

legislation itself did call for guarantees as well as direct lending.

Without getting further into it now, the policy, at least in the first

year of operation, will be more for guaranteeing than direct lending.

But there is the amount in vote 7 — $2.5 million available for direct

lending.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, with

respect to the vote before us now, I would like, through you, to assure

the Minister of Agriculture that this party will not do as it did

approximately one year ago — that is, move a motion of non-confidence

in the Minister and to reduce his salary to $1.

AN HON. MEMBER: $1.49.

MR. CURTIS: A number of us have had an opportunity, through

the agriculture committee — I'm prejudiced, I realize — which I believe

has been one of the more active committees of this Legislature since

prorogation last spring, to see the Minister show a very genuine

concern for individuals engaged in various aspects of agriculture. As

far as his

schedule would permit, he certainly attended the committee

hearings and the committee tours whenever and wherever that was

possible.

He travelled into Washington state with the agriculture committee

just a matter of a few weeks ago to examine the tree fruits industry in

the Yakima and Wenatchee areas.

I have the feeling that in terms of a Minister assigned a specific

task — in this case agriculture — a number of men and women engaged in

the field, whatever it may be — in ranching, in tree fruits, in

vegetables, in dairying and so on — are under the impression that the

Minister is genuinely interested in their problems. He is approaching

those problems and attempting to find solutions to the problems to the

best of his ability, and he is also encouraging his department to get

involved in a similar thrust.

I think that the Minister has put together a pretty good

departmental staff. Certainly when we travelled we met a number of men

and women — mainly men — who were attached to various sections of the

Minister's department. They seemed to be enthusiastic; they seemed to

be willing to try innovative programmes....

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: I'm not through yet, Mr. Minister. The rest is coming. Yes, the word "however" will creep into this sooner or later.

You inherited a good staff and you are building on that good staff.

However, I think that it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, at this point to

question the Minister...

HON. MR. STUPICH: You can turn him off now.

MR. CURTIS: ...with respect to his executive assistant, Mr.

Alex McLellan, particularly with regard to a statement which he made in

Prince George some time just prior to November 24 of last year. It was

reported in the daily press in Victoria on November 24, 1973. I'll

quote it in part or, if you permit, in its entirety. It's a fairly

brief article.

The headline is "No One Should Own Land."

"The executive assistant to Agriculture Minister Dave

Stupich says no one should have the right to own land in British

Columbia. Alex McLellan was greeted with boos Thursday when he told a

farmers' meeting of the chamber of commerce here that, in his opinion,

nobody should own land. A retired appliance dealer from Nanaimo,

McLellan was appointed in May.

"McLellan said that when Bill 42, the Land Commission

Act, was introduced to preserve farmland, people were upset. 'I don't

think there is anyone today who is against Bill 42.' He was again booed

by the predominantly farmer-rancher audience.

"He suggested the government could buy farmland from people in the 60s and 70s who, want out and lease it to young farmers who

[ Page 517 ]

want to get into the business."

I hope the Minister will take as much time as is permitted and

necessary this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to tell us if that reflects his

opinion or the opinion of his government. Or does he disassociate

himself from the reported remarks of Mr. McLellan?

I would like to know whether the Minister was aware in advance that

such a statement would be made by Mr. McLellan anywhere in the

province. Did the Minister discuss the statement, or reported

statement, with Mr. McLellan after November 22? And was Mr. McLellan

reprimanded or in anyway corrected after he made that reported

statement?

It's interesting to note that on orders of the day for February 4,

when I asked in a written question about Mr. McLellan "Was Mr. McLellan

selected as an executive assistant from among a group of applicants or

candidates?" the Minister replied in writing, "No."

"If the answer to number one is yes, did the Minister conduct

interviews with any other applicants or candidates prior to the

appointment of Mr. McLellan?" The answers to (2) and (3) were "No."

"What is Mr. McLellan's previous experience or background in

agriculture or related activities?" And the answer from the Minister in

orders of the day, "Nil."

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, through you, that while the professional

staff, the career staff, of the Department of Agriculture is doing a

generally commendable job, and in some instances doing an outstanding

job, this kind of reported statement from a newly engaged executive

assistant will not help the Minister in developing faith and good

relationships between the people engaged in agriculture, in all its

facets, and the Minister and his department.

I also hope that the Minister will talk to us briefly, if he can,

about what I sense is a conflict between his department and one, if not

two, other departments of government. It may be that this is an

historic conflict — that it is something which has not developed since

September of 1972; but I am concerned about the relationship between

the Minister's department and the Department of Recreation and

Conservation and the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I wonder if the Minister is getting the kind of cabinet understanding

and support for a number of the programmes in which he believes — and

which many people involved in agriculture in this province believe —

are vital if the industry is to flourish and grow.

I suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the vital

departments of government in any province, and particularly in British

Columbia. We are eating more than we produce; that is well known. I

would hope the Minister would agree that the food crisis in years to

come could make the energy crisis look like a passing minor irritant.

But if this government and succeeding governments and succeeding

Ministers of Agriculture are to assist the industry and to make sure

that it is producing more, then we need the assurance that he is

winning these battles which inevitably must occur with those who would

conserve large tracts of land for wildlife purposes, the parks people,

who feel that large areas should be set aside for wilderness parks and

that domestic animals, as an example, should be kept out.

I'm concerned about the battle between grazing and park use. I'm

concerned about the wildlife preserves in parts of the province, and

the fact that those bottom lands in many instances could be put to

extremely productive use in terms of producing more food for British

Columbians and others nearby.

There may be some other comments a little later on as we deal with

these estimates. But I do want to again emphasize that while there is

general satisfaction with the man doing the job, there is concern about

the conflicts he may be encountering within his cabinet, and there is

most certainly very, very serious concern about statements from his

executive assistant such as the one I cited a few moments ago.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think perhaps there's more concern in the

mind of the Hon. Member for Saanich than in anyone else's mind. I

almost forgot it until he raised it on the order paper. I answered it

immediately, thinking it might settle that matter for the time being.

I didn't know in advance what Mr. McLellan was going to say in

answer to a question from the floor, when he was asked not to give

party opinion, or the Minister's opinion, but to give his personal

opinion about a particular situation. I had no way of knowing in

advance and perhaps lie didn't know himself, not being able to

anticipate.

No reprimand was required under the circumstances. I would not

reprimand anyone for having a personal opinion, or for giving that

personal opinion when the situation calls for it.

Correction: I would not attempt to correct anyone's personal opinion

of anything. I might try to persuade them otherwise. But in this

particular instance he was not speaking for the government; he was not

giving government policy; he was not giving my policy. He was simply

giving his own answer to a question as he was asked to do under those

particular circumstances.

I'll remind the Member that he is not a member of the professional

or career staff, as he described the others. He is the Minister's

assistant, and his job is to assist the Minister in ways that the

Minister wants that assistance and that is precisely his responsibility

and there it ends. And of course, the Minister is responsible for

everything that is done or said by that member. I think that's about

all I can say on that.

As far as cabinet support: I think the fact that we have been able to get through the legislation, some of

[ Page 518 ]

which was described by the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) ; the fact that we have been able to get

this legislation introduced and passed in the fall session; the fact

that substantial moneys have been set aside in this year's estimates

waiting for House approval right now — the fact that we've been able to

do all that; the fact that we have embarked on an income assurance

programme with respect to one commodity group and are seriously

discussing it with another, I think these are examples of tangible

evidence that the Minister does have cabinet support for everything

he's trying to do on behalf of the agricultural industry. There are

areas of conflict; there are bound to be. There are limited resources.

I've forgotten now who it was who said with respect to land that they

aren't making any more of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will Rogers.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There are bound to be conflicts for these

limited resources. There are bound to be discussions in cabinet as to

whether a particular area should best be used by wildlife, by

agriculture or for forests.

We are a mature people; we are discussing these conflicts. We have

task forces in some areas looking into these areas of conflict. In some

cases, no doubt, we'll arrive at a decision that they should be

entirely for one resource user, in other cases, combined. But we are

looking at these things. We're studying them and trying to arrive at a

logical conclusion with respect to each one of these questions rather

than simply flying by the seat of our pants or letting it be decided on

the basis of which Minister has most cabinet support for whatever he

wants to do.

Let's look at the areas of conflict. Let's try to decide them in the

interests of the people of the province as a whole, today's and

tomorrow's, and decide what is the best thing to do with these

resources. That's the way we are trying to work at it, and every one of

these committees will be looking into things. There are representatives

from the various departments that are involved; the various resources

users are on all of these committees. They're looking at them; they're

recommending them. The environment and land use committee of cabinet

will be considering all these programmes and recommendations. And

cabinet itself may be called upon to make the final decisions in some

cases, or possibly the Legislature will be required to legislate. But

in any case, we're trying to look at them sensibly and come up with

answers that we believe are sensible answers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

the Minister's comments. I would just add that while we appreciate you

are trying to come to, through discussions, logical conclusions in all

areas of your agricultural policy, I would suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the concern of the public and

the concern of the producer is that while you're busy trying to come to

logical conclusions, it's the producer who is paying the shot. It is

the producer who is caught in the squeeze between what you have said

you want to do and these logical conclusions that you're going to come

to — in terms of dollars and cents and frustration in what his future

is and insecurity in his own industry. Perhaps the Minister, during his

estimates, will be prepared to tell us some of the logical conclusions

to which he has come.

The Premier asked on behalf of the Minister about the format that is

used for the Department of Agriculture estimates this year. I've looked

through them very carefully, Mr. Minister. In discussing these with my

colleagues and also with people in the agricultural industry I would

suggest that it might be an accountant's dream, but it's an

agriculturist's nightmare, and it's a legislator's nightmare.

There has been concern with your government about the number of

orders-in-council it is passing, but with its continual programme of

removing authority for spending, and programming outside the

Legislature, if you were to adopt this format as a regular procedure, I

would suggest this would just compound the concern.

It's very difficult to examine this. For example, in areas where

you're increasing your staff, the type of staff that you're hiring. For

example, there's an obvious need for more highly qualified research

people in your department, and more funds for research in the

agricultural industry. Yet it's difficult to decide of your new staff

whether this commitment and need is being fulfilled.

I would suggest that the explanatory notes are very interesting.

Perhaps they are very helpful. I myself would like to see you go to a

more detailed breakdown of your spending next year and also include the

explanatory notes.

Mr. Minister — and I would invite your comment back on this

suggestion — one of the other concerns that I would like to elaborate

on is the amount of money that appears to be or not to be allotted to

your various Acts which are to be a boost to agriculture in British

Columbia. We're not concerned that your voice isn't heard in cabinet,

but what we are concerned about is whether or not you have told your

cabinet colleagues and the Minister of Finance the potential cost of

many of these programmes that the government is committed to — many of

which are very good programmes.

I would speak, for example, in terms of credit loans — the Agricultural Credit Act

— for which I believe you have put $2 million this year. Yet, Mr.

Minister, you know and I know that in your office, some of which are

from my own area, you have an

[ Page 519 ]

abundance of applications to take advantage of that

Act, which in themselves...the one I'm holding right now is worth

$400,000. There is no way that the money allotted to you for the

carrying out of this Act and the potential good that this Act can do

will meet even the most meagre means and requests.

The one I have here is for a dairy industry. Two families in their

30s, aggressive, experienced in the dairy industry — and with their

farm buildings, et cetera, they'll need $200,000. Their livestock and

dairy herd will be $50,000; their production quota will be $70,000;

their improvements on their farm buildings and facilities will be

$45,000; their contingency working capital will be $ 10,000. So even if

they had $100,000, which would be one-quarter of the required capital

on their own, I would suggest that you can only handle a maximum of

eight of these applications. Yet you have applications for developing

in the fruit industry, and you have applications in the vegetable

industry and many other areas.

So I would ask whether you have intentions to go back to the

Minister of Finance and have an increase of at least another $10

million added to this fund.

Another complication which I wonder if you are aware of is that

while you have basically been talking about this credit assistance to

help people to get into the agricultural industry or to expand their

operations, there's been no action forthcoming. What is happening is

that many people are becoming interested in agriculture. They're taking

options on land, they're looking at viable operations.... When the

Minister's finished waving to his friends in the gallery, I wonder if

he would listen to what I have to say.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I haven't missed a word, Pat!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I hope, Mr. Minister, that we get some

action because what's happening on this issue is that you, through your

discussion of this Act and your failure to produce the money of the

Act, are creating an inflationary reaction on agricultural land.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you want to sit down?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Minister. I'll sit down in good time and I hope there'll be some answers.

This very project that I'm talking about, and it's before your

department, had an option on land which had to lapse because there was

no indication from the department as to whether it would be accepted or

not. Now the developers are in bidding on the land, another farmer is

in bidding on the land, and this farming group wants to have the land.

This long period of delay that you've allowed to happen has put

farmers in a competitive position with each other, which is great for

the fellow who is trading over the land, but has done nothing for

agriculture in terms of helping new people get into the agricultural

industry or expanding their present holdings. I would ask the Minister:

on that line are you prepared to adjust what would be your original

acceptance of a loan in light of this inflation that your own words

have helped create?

Mr. Minister, I'd like to talk a little bit about the fruit industry

in the Okanagan. An industry that you've expressed a great deal of

interest in and which, again, in spite of your efforts, or your

attempted efforts, is suffering because of indecision on your part or

else, in fact, lack of support from your cabinet colleagues.

You, Mr. Minister, entered into a dialogue for the construction of

controlled-atmosphere storage which appears to be a very desirable

aspect for the industry. But you didn't give the industry any

opportunity or any assurance that, in fact, you would be participating

as a government in this programme.

And what we had happen at this year's convention.... Incidentally,

Mr. Minister, on the convention, I was asked to express their extreme

disappointment that you did not see fit to be there. This is a very

sensitive industry in which you have laid down some very strong

regulations to which they are reacting very strongly. They felt that

the least you would have done would have to be there to answer some of

their concern. Maybe the Minister would like to explain to us why he

wasn't there.

But back to the convention: what happened was that your staff and

the board were put in a most embarrassing position. They had to go

before a convention of delegates from the fruit industry with this type

of proposal, discussing the controlled-atmosphere storage.

I'd like to read it into the record, Mr. Minister, so perhaps you'll understand. They say:

"The estimated cost of controlled atmosphere expansion

in Kelowna, which is to be located adjacent to the existing facility,

will cost an estimated $1,361,700; the estimated cost of the proposed

expansion of the location is $886,000 — a total estimated cost of

expanding both facilities of $2,247,700.

"The industry has filed applications with the federal

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) for financial assistance

under the Produce Storage Construction Grant. This assistance

programme, which was initiated in 1973, provides assistance of

one-third of the total cost of construction or $500,000, whichever is

the lowest. Purchase of lands, sites, development, engineers' fees,

grading and handling equipment and excess roadways or rail

[ Page 520 ]

spur lines may be included in the total cost. We would expect

that government acceptance of the two applications would result in a total grant

of approximately $750,000."

Fair enough.

"The federal department has not officially allocated a

grant but there is reason to believe that our applications will be

favourably received."

Now that's from the federal government, Mr. Minister. They had

figures with which they could deal. While they had no commitment from

the federal government in fact, they had a strong indication that they

could work on these figures and what assistance would be involved and

where the assistance would apply.

What did they have to say about the provincial government?

"The provincial government has also been contacted for

financial assistance on our proposed CA expansion. Although there has

been no firm commitment from the provincial government, the industry

will make an application under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act . "

That's all, Mr. Minister, and your own staff had to get up and

answer questions which you were unwilling to give and which they were

unable to give. You should further know, because you weren't at the

convention, Mr. Minister, and I want to read this for your information:

"The industry officials represented on the board of

directors of B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd., and the executive of BCFGA, in the

interest of time have authorized B.C. Tree Fruits to assign an

engineering firm to develop the working drawings for the CA expansion.

Accordingly, Food Industries Research and Engineering of Yakima,

Washington, were engaged last fall to develop the working drawings."

Mr. Minister, let me advise you what they had to say to their delegates about time, without any commitment from you.

"The plan of action should approve for the CA

expansion, be received by the BCFGA convention, and would be as

follows: working drawings starting November 15, 1973, completion,

January 15, 1974; tendering, starting January 18, 1974; site clearance,

starting January 18, 1974, completed by January 31, 1974; site

preparation and foundations, starting March 1, 1974; storage building

completion, July 1, 1974; equipment installed and tested, completion,

August, '74; facility completed, September 20, 1974."

As it must be if it's to be of any value in next year's production and sales problems.

They went on to say:

"This is a very tight

schedule for construction of

such large facilities" — which it is — "and it will be necessary to

take advantage of all the time that is available between now and

harvest to complete construction.

"We therefore propose that the industry's

controlled-atmosphere facilities at Kelowna and Oliver be expanded to

provide additional capacity of approximately 30,000 bins, making use of

the best financial arrangements possible."

Making use of the best financial arrangements possible.

Mr. Minister, what you did by not giving any directions to that

board or to your own staff was, in fact, to get the growers to vote for

a pig in a poke. If they follow the programme as outlined here, without

any assistance from the provincial government, then they must finance

on a 10- to 12-year basis, and they will have to finance at a higher

interest rate. But if you are involved, Mr. Minister, and there is a

grant from the provincial government, then it's presumable that they

can finance on a 20-year basis.

The problem here is that no delegate who is truly cognizant of his

responsibilities as to what he is voting for and how he should be

voting could in clear justification vote for a project like this that

was so bare in figures and facts. If the Minister had just indicated to

the board, so that they could indicate publicly that there is likely to

be a capital grant in terms of one-third of the capital cost and what

would be included in the way of cost-sharing actions, or whether it

would be a long-term interest loan, then those delegates could have

voted with a much clearer conscience.

What they've had to do, Mr. Minister, is vote for, as I say, a pig

in a poke — an embarrassment to them when they go back to their own

locals to try and explain what they voted for. They can't give any

estimates on what that's going to cost per pound of apples to each

grower. There are no figures which a producer can work with. All he's

got is a generality that they have to have CA storage, and it may cost

this or it may cost that.

The other matter that concerns them, Mr. Minister, is that you have

not come to final agreement, or hadn't to my last knowledge, on the

income assistance programme. What they want to know is: are you going

to use a loan for the CA storage as a club over their heads? Are you

going to use this loan as a club over their heads on income assistance?

Are you going to use it as a club over their heads when it comes to

possible amalgamation of packing houses?

That's just one concrete example, Mr. Minister, of where your

concern expressed a year ago, which has not been followed by action,

has left them in a more confused and insecure state than ever.

[ Page 521 ]

They know, Mr. Minister, what the situation is in terms of marketing

their own products and the increasing competition that's coming from

other sectors. Why couldn't you have indicated to them? You had no

hesitation in announcing your participation in the chicken factory, you

had no hesitation in announcing your participation in the

alfalfa-cubing plant. Why did you hesitate for a group of producers in

the fruit industry?

Another matter, Mr. Minister, that came out of that discussion which

they'd like to know is: if this controlled-atmosphere storage plant, or

the plants, are developed with provincial funds, if they are

forthcoming — and I would like to recommend to you on that subject, by

the way — will you accept a capital grant rather than a long-term loan?

Give them one-third of the capital cost and don't burden them with more

loans. They're already burdened with so many loans they don't know

which way to turn. Give them a capital grant; then let them assume the

operating costs.

But because they're receiving government money, are those plants going to be required to operate under the Fair Employment Practices Act ?

And will they be required to hire only union labour? On this subject,

when it comes to income assistance assurance, because it's government

funds, are farmers eventually going to be forced into the position

where they have to hire unionized labour only?

If this is the long-term intention of the government, then it should

be clearly spelled out now, so that the right of choice is theirs. If

the producers want to participate, then they know the ground rules of

the game. But don't encourage them to involve themselves in government

assistance if the ground rules are going to be changed.

I'd like to ask the Minister his views on one aspect at this time of

the Hudson report, and that is in relation to the amalgamation of the

packing houses, or packing services. I'd like to know the Minister's

view as to how this should be brought about. I recognize there's a

committee studying this, but we have got a record now from this

government of committee recommendations being thrown out and the

committee being sacked for not sharing the philosophy of the Minister.

We certainly hope that this is not going to happen here, and we hope

the Minister will give that assurance this afternoon.

But, Mr. Minister, what do you propose to do in terms of

amalgamation? What type of a settlement do you propose to consider for

those packing houses that have less capital debt than others? The

Minister must surely be aware that there are a number of packing houses

in the Okanagan which are free of capital debt, but because of this

they have been paying their own producers less over a period of years

where they were amortizing that capital debt, and that there are other

packing houses which in fact are paying their producers more in terms

of direct returns to the pound, but in fact are carrying a heavier debt

load. I'd like to know, and I'm sure the industry would like to know —

not just the executives, but the producers would like to know — how the

Minister intends to equalize this situation.

When the final report is in from the directors of the committee

studying the potential amalgamation of packing houses, is the Minister

going to do as he was recommended by Allied Growers? He has a letter on

this. Is there going to be a vote of the members of each packing house?

Is there going to be a vote on an industry-wide basis?

If there is an amalgamation of certain packing houses, is the

Minister going to make funds available so that a concerted study can be

done of each facility to find out whether the present facilities and

which present facilities are capable of renovation and expansion? Or is

he going to embark on a programme of major new construction?

What is he prepared to do if he finds that these current buildings,

if that is his approach, that are capable of renovation and addition,

are gathered in one central area? Is he prepared to recommend to the

industry that producers truck their fruit as far as perhaps 60 miles?

If so, is he prepared to compensate for that type of extra cost to

those producers? Or must it be borne by the industry itself?

Another matter of concern is the management of packing houses. I

would ask the Minister if he has considered — and if he hasn't, I would

recommend that he consider incentives to encourage young, qualified

people or potentially qualified people to specialize, if you can

specialize in the area of packing-house management. I believe that such

a programme on a reciprocal basis could be carried out with the

University of Washington, that the government should make these

arrangements, and that the government should make available

scholarships to anyone of a reasonable age who has a background in the

fruit industry and in marketing, or in any of these areas, to take such

a programme of training, and perhaps have experience in some of the

packing houses, so that they would be available, and we could upgrade

the future management in our packing houses.

Speaking of packing houses and the fruit industry, I would like to

know the Minister's views on the Dr. Hudson report in relation to the

restructuring of the industry.

One point of interest would be the full-time government-appointee

chairman. I'm asking the Minister's assurance today for the industry

itself, that this chairman, if he is a government appointee, basically

be someone recognized by the industry as an acceptable individual on

the basis of ability, in the terms of management, in terms of chairman

ability, and in terms of knowledge of the industry, and that it

[ Page 522 ]

have no relation to any political affiliation.

I bring this up because the Minister stated quite clearly under the Land Commission Act

that he would be appointing political people to that board because he

felt it was essential that the Land Commission directors be

philosophically compatible with the objectives of the government. I

caution you, Mr. Minister. I warn you, that if you try any hanky-panky

in the way of political appointments in the food industry you will live

to regret the day, and you will have the MLAs from the North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan), Central Okanagan and South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) to

contend with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Central Okanagan?

MRS. JORDAN: That's a threat.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Where are they now?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, they want to know why you weren't

at the interior vegetable growers' convention, and they want to know

why you weren't at the B.C. fruit growers' convention. What were you

doing, Mr. Minister? Tell us. You're so vitally concerned about this

industry.

MR. PHILLIPS: He made it to the boat sale, though.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I would repeat that we don't care

what the political affiliations of the individuals involved are in

terms of their own private affairs, but don't you meddle in this

industry with political affiliations of a partisan nature.

As I say, I have a lot of questions, but I would like to hear the

Minister's own views on this recommendation, and I would also on this

point ask the Minister if he doesn't think it just a little bit

irrelevant that the agriculture committee, which has basically been a

good committee, should be at this time passing judgment on the one-desk

selling agency when, in fact, the members of the industry have already

had a vote. If that isn't getting you confused in the chicken-and-egg

warfare, I don't know what is. I recommend, Mr. Minister, that you

delete that from the terms of reference, because that committee has no

business adjudicating this marketing system immediately after it has

been voted on by the members of the industry.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you'd listen, Mr. Minister, instead of having tea with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The referendum, yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That was passed in the Legislature last fall. Do you want me to change those now?

MRS. JORDAN: I think you should delete the point on passing

adjudication on the selling agency, in view of the fact that the

democratic process has already taken place.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A retroactive amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, judging by your answers, I

can only assume, and those in the industry can only assume, that you

are trying to play both sides of the fence.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not trying to play both sides.

MRS. JORDAN: They had a vote on whether or not they would

support the one-desk selling agency, and now you are trying to ask the

committee of the Legislature to adjudicate this. I suggest you should

get off the fence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon. Member address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, how could I miss you? Mr.

Minister, I have a number of other questions, but I'll ask them later,

except for one point, and this is in relation to the point brought up

by the Hon. Member and apple eater for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis), when he referred to your executive assistant.

I would assure you, Mr. Minister, and ask you for assurance in

return, that there is considerable concern, as I mentioned, not only

whether or not your colleagues are fully aware of the overall potential

cost of the programmes you are embarking on, but also, Mr. Minister, as

to who really is speaking for your department. There is continual

complaint from various delegations that visit with you that in fact

you, yourself, are not making commitments. In fact you, yourself, are

not talking. One person suggested that you have become the Charlie

McCarthy of the agricultural industry, and that Edgar Bergen may well

be your executive assistant. This is causing considerable concern.

They want to know whether or not you are prepared to adjust

assessments on leased Crown lands for agricultural purposes, as one

example. We want to know what your policy is in terms of assessment of

agricultural land — not as you say it, but as you are being supported

in the cabinet.

I would ask one more question, Mr. Minister. Why

[ Page 523 ]

have you changed the policy when major agricultural

representatives come to their annual cabinet hearing, not to be heard

by the full cabinet? I would recommend to you that in fact they should

be heard by the full cabinet.

Four Ministers are not enough. Agriculture encompasses nearly every

department of this government from Consumer Services to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer),

and if ever one industry should have a full hearing by the cabinet at

this crucial time, it is the agricultural industry. I hope the Minister

will not give us some excuse of why it wasn't a full cabinet, but will

give this House assurance today that in future they will be heard by

the full cabinet.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister can answer some of those

questions and give us some reasonable explanations, and also help allay

some of the concerns that I have expressed, and I will wish to ask some

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30p 04s 740226p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30p 04s 740226p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	df16480df182ecd412e54b88af6287e7c09f330a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, February 26, 1974 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 4th Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974

INCREASED QUOTAS FOR

OKANAGAN BROILER GROWERS

PRESERVATION OF THE BIRKS BUILDING

ICBC HANDLING OF DAMAGED VEHICLES

BROILER PERMITS IN OKANAGAN

CHEQUE FROM SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

CAN-CEL RECOVERY PLANT

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND

B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

B.C. FISHERMEN UNDER PROVINCIAL

JURISDICTION

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AN HON. MEMBER: $1.49.

Document details