[ Page 887 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order Mr. Phillips. Standard of dress in the House — 887

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 887

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44) Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 888

Debt Collection Act (Bill No. 48) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 888

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act (Bill No. 100) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 888

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act (Bill No. 49) Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 889

Committee of supply: Department of Agriculture estimates Hon. Mr. Stupich — 889

Mr. Williams — 889

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 892

Mr. Smith — 893

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 896

Mr. Smith — 900

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 900

Mr. Wallace — 901

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 905

Mrs. Jordan — 906

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 907

Mrs. Jordan — 907

Mr. Brousson — 909

Mr. Lewis — 910

Mr. Chabot — 910

Hon. Mr., Cocke — 911

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 911

Mr. Phillips — 915

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 918

Mr. Phillips — 919

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 920

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two announcements if I might. The first is that I am sure the House would like to join with me in extending our congratulations and the congratulations of the Government of British Columbia to Karen Magnussen from North Vancouver who has just won the World Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Government and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will be extending the wishes of the House to Miss Magnussen — and for all the people of B.C., of course.

The second one is: with us in the gallery today are 35 students from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. They are here today with their teachers, Mr. Boldt and Mr. Davis. I would like the House to join with me in making them feel welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader of the official Opposition.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I understand today is a rather important day in your life. I understand that 39 years ago today you came into this world, not as a Speaker, but as a crier. (Laughter).

HON. MEMBERS: Hear ye. Hear ye. Hear ye.

MR. RICHTER: As it is obvious to you, everyone here today in the House is most happy to congratulate you and wish you the very best wishes on this birthday — even though it is a "Jack Benny" birthday.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we join in that felicitation to you and your birthday and I hope you will bear in mind that you are only young twice.

MR. SPEAKER: The same age as you as a matter of fact. (Laughter). The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming four teachers from the Coquitlam riding: Mr. Jack Thomas, principal of the Leigh Elementary School, Tom Sitter, Rod Cornelius and Len Bryce.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR, D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the House, and particularly to the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), that Miss Magnussen and her family are residents of North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome students from grade 11 in Oak Bay Senior Secondary with their teacher, Miss Sherlock.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a group of students from the Senior Secondary School at Port McNeill who are here today with their teachers, Mr. Parker and Mr. Burleson. Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is still a very difficult trip for the people in the north end to make down here and they look forward to visiting the galleries. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Elizabeth Gollata, a long time resident from the Shuswap country and mother-in-law to our Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of mayors and other members of the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities who are in Victoria for a couple of days. A number are in the galleries this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Last night you informed the House that the Members could wear whatever they considered their own good taste.

MR. SPEAKER: Not quite like that. More of what

[ Page 888 ]

I considered my good taste.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wish you would outline for the House, Mr. Speaker, what you consider the proper mode of apparel in this House because I don't think it should be left up to the individual. It is the honour of the House and the decorum of the House and of all the Members in the House at stake, not the taste of an individual. I would like you to outline for the House, in black and white, what you consider proper apparel in the House. I think it is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not running a day-care centre, right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: This legislature is not a day-care centre — it's the Legislature of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that you should outline for the Members in this House what is proper apparel in this House. Your comments last night leave a lot to be desired as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would suggest to the Hon. Members that if you are going to put anything in standing orders about what you wish the apparel to be in this magnificent and dignified chamber and with the world looking on; if you need someone to tell you how to dress, then I say put a resolution on the order papers setting out what you think proper dress is and let the other Members decide. Don't ask the Speaker to do it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not in a position by my authority vested in me, in my opinion, to tell you what you should wear. That is for you to decide. I have already said that last night and I've said it today. If you want another method of doing it, I propose the method that you use. In the meantime, Mr. Clerk, would you carry on with business.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in your office and there should be some direction.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MINERAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Mineral Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I say for the benefit of the Hon. Member that it was decided by resolution of the House that this method be used unless there was some strenuous objection in a particular bill.

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON' MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

DEBT COLLECTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Debt Collection Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE EVIDENCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Evidence Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 100 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CORONER'S ACT

[ Page 889 ]

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Coroner's Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SMALL CLAIMS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, February 28, 1973.

Bill No. 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Department of Agriculture, $54,968.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, it is the second time of asking. Apart from that, I've just had handed to me the 1972 report of the Department of Agriculture.

I haven't had a chance to review it. I have no idea what's in it. If it would help the Ministers at all, I'm quite prepared to leave a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to have it, it's fine with me. They could catch me off guard. I don't have another copy. My Deputy doesn't have a copy with him. If anybody wants to get this now, it's here. I just thought I'd announce that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, just one question arising out of the remarks of the Hon. Minister. That report has not yet been tabled in the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's right. It hasn't been. It's just a courtesy. The trouble is that by the time it is, Mr. Member, possibly vote 3 will be passed.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what concerns me. I don't think you should hand it to us until you have tabled it. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be appropriate for the Minister to table the report now and then we can look at it during the afternoon.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting I table it now?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there copies available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not possible to table it in committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there copies available, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I raise some question about your dress. I question whether you are appropriately attired as chairman of the committee. Obviously, your tastes are somewhat different from mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I feel that the dress is appropriate on this, the occasion of the birthday of the Speaker of the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I must say that your dress is symbolic of that which is used for other ceremonies, usually at the end of one's life. (Laughter). I'm certain that was not your intention. Perhaps before the afternoon is over, we can provide you with the appropriate boutonniere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Also ceremonies at the beginning of one's marriage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: That was a vicious attack upon the women of our province, Mr. Chairman, for you to suggest that there's any comparison between the nuptial event and a funeral. (Laughter). I suggest that you will take the appropriate opportunity to correct the record in that regard.

However, we are dealing with the estimates of the

[ Page 890 ]

Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). I have a couple of matters to raise with him and a couple of questions that perhaps he might care to answer.

Last evening as the debate was closing, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) raised with the Minister the subject of the Nicomekl and Serpentine flats, in particular the problem that the farmers in that area have with an excess of water. I trust that the Hon. Minister could indicate to us what the policy of his department will be and what programmes the farmers of this province may expect to see brought about which will help to cure that particular situation and similar situations which arise in other areas in this province.

I trust that the Minister can perhaps also indicate to what extent his department and the Department of Water Resources will join together in the solution of these problems. I have already spoken with the Deputy Minister of Water Resources concerning the Nicomekl and Serpentine. He is aware that the proper drainage of that area can indeed provide us with agricultural land perhaps capable of supplying, if not all, then the major portion of some of the vegetable requirements of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, and western Canada as well. It is a highly productive area. All that it requires is some very special attention. The same can be said, however, of other agricultural areas.

One in my constituency which is a matter of considerable and continuing concern is the Pemberton Valley. The Pemberton Valley is already a highly productive agricultural area, renowned throughout the continent and the world for the production of high-grade seed potatoes. The Hon. Minister is aware of the prizes that have recently been awarded to farmers in that area. The Pemberton Valley has not only the flood problem at certain times of the year but, strangely enough, at other times of the year it has a serious irrigation problem. Therefore, it is a two-way flow of water which concerns them.

Heretofore, Mr. Chairman, the government programmes that were offered to farmers facing drainage and irrigation difficulties were ones which thrust major expenses upon the farming community. There isn't a Member in this House who has taken the time to look into the economics of farming in this province who does not recognize that the farmer is the one who needs the help and yet who is least able to pay for the drainage and irrigation systems which will make his land increasingly productive.

Heretofore, programmes, whether under ARDA or otherwise, have always been such that the farmer could never afford to make his contribution. We have diking districts and they don't have the money. It all comes back to a charge upon the individual landowner, the individual farmer; and he is already struggling for economic survival.

Therefore, my specific question to the Minister in this regard is: in the forthcoming months, may we expect to have from him a positive programme with respect to the Nikomekl and Serpentine, and secondly, a positive programme which will make available to the farmers of this province, within the limits of their financial ability, drainage and irrigation facilities?

I think that if we do this that we will go a long way towards the improvement of the productive side of agriculture. Now that of course is only one of the many steps that must be taken.

I fully appreciate that the Minister is just beginning the long and difficult task towards the eventual relief of the farming community from the economic problems that face them and more importantly, Mr. Chairman, on the long task of putting the farming sector of our province in a better position to supply the continuing, and indeed, increasing need for foodstuffs in order for us to be able to withstand the impact of an over abundance of imported food products.

So saying, I would like to direct the Minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, to two other matters which I think are basic to the survival of the farming community and assisting us to better able withstand some of the impact that we have from imported farm products.

If I can just preface these remarks with a statement, and remind the Minister that if we do not make ourselves as nearly self-sufficient in the production of foodstuffs as we can, then increasingly we must rely upon the production of other jurisdictions — other jurisdictions in Canada, other jurisdictions in other parts of the world. When we place ourselves in that position, we create a situation where other people in other lands, subject to other laws, are able to control the amount of food which we will have to eat. This would be a disaster if we ever found ourselves in this position.

Mr. Chairman, in one sense, it is only a reflection of the problem we find with other resources. We've had debates in this House about the so-called energy crisis, the finite petroleum resource and the problems that's creating. Well the same thing happens with food. If we place ourselves in the position where we can no longer supply ourselves, then we will face a crisis.

For the farming community and for the production of foodstuffs, we really come down to two fundamental concerns. One is production, and the other is marketing.

We've been told in the past, Mr. Chairman, and I would like the Minister to comment on this — we've

[ Page 891 ]

been told in the past, particularly by the former Minister of Agriculture, that the farms in the Province of British Columbia have substantially increased their efficiency and that it was no longer appropriate for Members in this House to question the efficiency of the productive sector of our farming community. I would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) agrees with that conclusion. Because it would seem to me from the studies that took place two years ago in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture that we indeed were falling far short in British Columbia of providing anything like the quantity of foodstuff which we require in some commodities.

Now I readily appreciate that there are some farm products in sufficient supply that we're able to export them. But in some of the basic commodities, potatoes is one, we fall far short of fulfilling the demand within this province. Therefore I would like to know from the Minister if his assessment of the situation is the same and what plans he may have to improve the productive segment of the farming community.

Now it's easy to simplify and suggest that production and marketing are all that needs to concern the agricultural community. I don't mean to suggest that it is that easy.

If I may turn to deal with the other aspect of the twofold problem, marketing, and direct a couple of questions to the Minister in that regard.

Yesterday the Minister indicated that an examination was being made into the availability of our farm products for export. Certainly that is a very commendable exercise upon which the Minister is engaged.

But truly I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would indicate where in his estimates he discloses staff positions for people who are skilled in marketing economics. I don't see any market research personnel taken into the Department of Agriculture. I don't see any real attention being given to the economic studies that must be made if we are to embark upon any significant export programme.

If we are to do such a thing and embark upon an export programme, we have the strange anomaly of farming groups coming to the Legislature and saying: "Please assist us to withstand the influence of low cost produce being imported into this country," and at the same time hearing the Minister of Agriculture suggesting that we can take our produce and go abroad and sell it.

If the price of produce from our farms is so high that it is influenced by cheap imports, then it seems rather incredible to me that those same farmers could turn around and go into the world export market and compete against those same cheap foodstuffs produced in other jurisdictions. Therefore some very careful analysis and review must be made by highly qualified people. I would like the Minister to indicate, if he would, where in the vote in his department allowance is made for personnel who can conduct this study.

Now on the matter of production, and making goods for our own needs, I would also like the Minister to indicate to what extent his department is prepared to support, in a very active way, programmes for the consumption by British Columbians of foodstuffs which are grown in this province.

I know there is one item in one of the votes for an estimated expenditure of $200,000 in the forthcoming fiscal year for that purpose. I would like the Minister to indicate how those moneys might be spent.

One of the most exciting presentations that was made to the agricultural committee two years ago was from the produce manager of one of the major retail companies in British Columbia. This produce manager had been many, many years in the business. As a matter of fact, his experience in the produce business went back to the days when we used to have Ashcroft tomatoes and Ashcroft potatoes and many other products which have since disappeared from the markets in British Columbia — products which were outstanding in quality and which had a renowned name.

I remember as a very young boy coming to this province from the prairie, my father and mother talked to me about Ashcroft potatoes as something they looked forward to enjoying. They didn't mean much to me then, but here we are today and you know, where are the Ashcroft potatoes? The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was a member of the agricultural committee which dealt with this very problem, and he knows what the situation is. The same applies with varieties of fruit in this province. They've completely disappeared. They were produce which were hallmarks by way of name in this province, and yet they've gone.

This produce manager spoke highly of the kind of product that we can produce in British Columbia, and which we can sell in British Columbia. There may not be sufficient, Mr. Chairman, to export, but we can produce. People who come to British Columbia will look for particular products from particular areas of this province, and we can again begin to sell "B.C. grown" in the real sense of the word.

As I say, we used to talk about the Ashcroft potato. It was a delicious, delectable potato. Now you go into the stores, what do you see? The big sale item is Idaho potatoes. What's so great about Idaho potatoes? The one thing that's so great about them is the manner in which they are promoted. They put them in a little fancier bag, and it looks a little better, When you consider that the housewife, the shopper who goes to the market is only able to judge the product that he or she will buy by looks — that's the

[ Page 892 ]

only chance you've got. You can't taste it. If you want to cheat a little bit, you can feel it. But really it is the visual impression that determines whether the shopper will buy one product or the other product.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Price also interferes as well. But really the impression that's made upon the shopper is what you see visually. Therefore, it is the visual presentation of British Columbia products which will really encourage us to buy B.C. grown products. We had public relations programmes put on with signs and so on. I really don't think that newspaper advertisements or signs in stores have that great an impact. But if we put the product before the shopper in the most attractive way and at the same time we carry on an advertising programme which makes B.C. potatoes something better visually than any other kind, then I think we will really be getting down to the business of encouraging the use of home-grown products.

This brings me to the last question I want to pose to the Minister at this time. We have in this province a series of marketing boards. I'd like to have the Minister indicate whether or not he is looking at these marketing boards to see whether they are truly fulfilling the role of marketing. Everyone knows that the marketing boards are maintained for the sake of the producer. They're really groups of producers who get together and regulate the flow of their product into the market in a way so that there will be the fairest possible return to all the producers. How fair that return might be is something which hopefully we will have the opportunity to examine in committee.

But I think that the name is wrong. When we met two years ago in the agricultural committee with groups from various marketing boards, I proposed the same questions to each one. Each one I asked, when they came before the committee, what their budget was for the promotion of the product which it was their responsibility to market. Time after time they either didn't know the figure at all, and promised to get it or, when they did produce the figure, it was very low.

Therefore, I think that we should either change the marketing board concept and the legislation which surrounds it to make those boards more concerned with the marketing aspect of their ability. Indeed, if we can't do that, we should responsibly change the names of those boards from marketing boards to producer boards. Because this is really what they are. They are groups of producers. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that when production is finished they consider their responsibility to be virtually finished.

Now there are some very noteworthy exceptions. In the tree fruit industry and in the turkey growers, they are doing outstanding work in the promotion and marketing of their products. As a matter of fact they're doing such a good job in the question of tree fruits that I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has raised some questions as to whether they're not going too far.

In any event, I think that throughout the whole range of farm products, if the marketing boards are not going to pay a greater attention to the marketing problems, ensuring that the product that they take from the farmer passes through the board and is placed on the shelves of the stores of this province and is well marketed, then we should look at the legislation and at their responsibilities and either require them to improve their attitudes or replace them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): With respect to the Nikomekl-Serpentine area, this area is of prime concern to the Department of Agriculture. We recognize the value of this land for farming purposes. I certainly appreciate the implicit word from the Member, if I can take it that way, that he intends to support the programme of the Government to preserve farmland. We think this is an extremely important area to preserve and we're going to do everything we can to preserve it for future food production.

As far as controlling flooding and drainage, I think he recognized that the federal government has quite a lot to do with this. When it's possible to work out an arrangement with our Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and with the federal government so that the charge to the individual farmers is at the minimum, as low as 10 per cent, this is the best position we have been able to reach to this point.

If we're not able to go that route and have to go ARDA, then the individual farmers are obliged to pay something like 1/3 of the cost. So naturally we would prefer the best deal possible.

Under the proposed commission, if I may mention it, of course we'll be able to go even further than that. It may be that that would be the route to go if the Members of the House decide to support the move to establish a commission. The commission will have the authority…Well, I am sure the Members are familiar with that without my getting into the details of the legislation.

What I really want to say in answer to your question is that we recognize the importance of maintaining that particular area. At the present it's a matter that would be better discussed by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). Certainly this department will do what it can to persuade the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

[ Page 893 ]

Water Resources that it should be reserved for farming.

The importation of farm products of course is something that does concern the producing sector of the economy. We're very upset, for example, at the recent move in Ottawa to work against that, i.e., to make it easier for people to import particularly American produce.

We wish that there were some way of making stronger representations to the government in Ottawa. If the Member opposite has any friends in the Liberal group in Ottawa — we have friends in the NDP group — and with his friends in the Liberal group perhaps we can persuade them that they should not be taking this particular direction, which is certainly working against the interests of the farming community in this province.

Farmers have improved their efficiency. I don't think there is any question about that. I can recall selling eggs retail in 1951, when I was producing them and doing everything else and finally retailing them — selling them door to door in 1951 at 83 cents a dozen. Now the price has never been as high since. Yet the farmers today who are selling them at 50 cents a dozen are doing better than I was. At that time the markup between wholesale and retail would have been about 17 cents or 67 cents producer price; now it's 50 cents. Yet through improved efficiency on the part of the farmers, they have been able to get their costs down to the point where they can make more money producing them at a lower price.

I am not suggesting that they've reached the end by any means. There are some areas where there could be tremendous increases in efficiency. If we want to pursue that, then I'll get more into the detail.

They have improved their efficiency; there is still room for further improvements and there will be room, I am sure, for some time to come — just as there is in every other sector of the community, in every area of production or in every area of manufacture or processing. Anything at all. Who can say that we've reached the ultimate in efficiency in any direction? Certainly I think the farmers would be the last to say that they have reached the ultimate in efficiency in their own particular production commodity group.

Market services. I would prefer that you asked specific questions like that in the relevant vote. In the area of market services, for example, the increased personnel are in vote 4, the actual expenses of the market service itself. The detail of the programme I would prefer to take under vote 6.

The actions of the marketing board and what they have accomplished, any discussion of the marketing board, again I would prefer it if we could take it under vote 15. I'm not putting these things off. I would just prefer that under the Minister's salary we talk more generally about things or about items that are not covered in any of the specific votes; that we leave the specific matters, Mr. Chairman, until we get to the appropriate vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to enter into the debate on the Department of Agriculture estimates and to exchange a few ideas, both philosophical and otherwise with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

One of the first matters that I would like to bring to his attention concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. I know this does not come under his jurisdiction directly, but there is at odd times during the year an occasion for all the Ministers of the different provincial jurisdictions to meet, not only collectively but with the federal Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the position of the Canadian Wheat Board and the attitudes that they express must be a topic of discussion at one time or another.

What I would like to suggest to the Minister for his consideration at the next meeting is this: In my opinion the whole attitude of the Canadian Wheat Board toward what constitutes surplus production of agricultural products, particularly of wheat in Canada, and what we should really look at as over-production, are actually two different things.

It seems ridiculous to me, Mr. Chairman, that the wheat board gets very nervous any time that we have a few million bushels of grain in storage. They immediately begin talking about surplus production and the fact that we should perhaps cut back on our wheat acreage or we should do something to decrease the amount of grain produced by our nation.

The ridiculous thing it brings about is the fact we could be faced with a disaster in our production at the same time that countries which purchase our wheat face a disaster in their production. We could very easily get into a position where we would be embarrassed by not being able to even live up to the commitments that we had made to foreign buyers of our grain products. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that we shouldn't even talk about surpluses until we have at least 500 million bushels of grain in storage at any one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what the farmers believe?

MR. SMITH: I would think that the farmers would be quite happy to know that the federal government was not going to be worried about wheat surpluses or a reduction in price of grain until they had at least 500 million bushels of grain in surplus storage. The way the production of grain goes today and the

[ Page 894 ]

demand that we have been able to exploit on the world market, we could very easily place ourselves in a position within one year, because of bad circumstances in our own farming economy and an excess demand from countries who face similar crises, that we would not be able to supply even the amount required to fulfil our contracts.

Therefore, a surplus of 500 million bushels in my opinion is not a surplus. It is money in the bank, and it shouldn't be reflected in a decreased price to the poor guy who is producing wheat if we do happen to run something over 500 million bushels of grain per year in storage throughout Canada, I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would consider that point of view when he is talking to the federal Minister of Agriculture and through him to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The problem of the farmer today, and we all admit it, is not that he cannot produce gain. The problem of the farmer today, whether it be grain production, fruit production, poultry production or whatever, is that regardless of how much he produces, the net return at the end of the year is still a minus figure. Until we can overcome that particular problem, you are not going to put the farming economy into a viable position in the Province of British Columbia.

I think a lot of people have got to realize that somewhere along the line, while they seem to be prepared to accept price increases in almost every other commodity, they must be prepared to accept price increases in the commodities that are produced by the farmers, not only of British Columbia, but of all of Canada. Certainly, no one seems to object too strenuously to healthy salary increases to those people that are in the labour force. If this is an accepted way of life, then it should be equally an accepted way of life to give a farmer a fair return for his efforts in producing the agricultural products that we either consume in the Dominion of Canada or export to some other part of the world.

I note from my records that when I spoke in the budget debate, as a matter of fact in February, 1967, I was referring to the farming economy of the Peace River country. At that time I raised two main points that I thought had contributed greatly to the farming communities. One of the first things that came to my mind was the policy of B.C. Hydro to extend rural electrification throughout as much of the province as possible and the introduction of the subsidy programme which allowed farming communities to receive the same benefit as a closely-knit incorporated town or village.

That was one of the great plus factors in the life of the farmer, and thankfully most rural communities in the Province of British Columbia now have benefit of hydro power.

The second thing I pointed out was that the farmers, in the Peace River country particularly, were to be complimented because they had stayed and developed a new area — relatively new in terms of the farming economy of Canada. They had a firm belief in the future. I suggested at that time that it was up to us in this province to help their dreams become realities. The Minister, I am sure, is aware of what I am leading up to. I am leading up to the crop disaster of the last year in the Peace River country.

It seems ludicrous to me, Mr. Minister, that when the farmers have an input of an average price of $50 per acre, and that that input plus anything they might have received was completely wiped out by a crop disaster, that this province with all its resources and wealth, could not find it within its means to pay those farmers a settlement of more than $3.75 per acre. I have compared this figure to comparable settlements to farmers that suffered severe damage in the Surrey area. We know that that figure is $3.75 per acre in the Peace River country and an average of $277 per acre for those farmers who were flooded out in the Surrey area. What a discrepancy.

What I would like to explore with the Minister of Agriculture is this: What is the difference? How do you justify one scale of benefits for one part of the province and a much lower scale of benefits for another part of the province? Is not a complete crop disaster as disastrous and detrimental to the farmer of the Peace River country as it is to a farmer in any other part of the Province of British Columbia?

Is not his position the same regardless of the comparable size of the farms? His position has got to be exactly the same as if he loses his total crop, be it the Peace River country, be it Vancouver Island, be it the Fraser Valley or wherever it may happen in the Province of British Columbia.

It makes one wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the token payment, which could very well result in a number of farmers going out of the farming picture completely, is not another means of returning their farmland to the Crown because they were not able to pay the taxes that have accumulated in arrears. Certainly there is a provision today that if they cannot pay their taxes within a specified length of time, that land will return to the Crown.

Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture and the Government of this province to create a land bank through the distress of farmers in the Peace River country? I would hope that is not the policy of the Department of Agriculture or of the Government of this province.

I would hope that the policy is fair and equitable treatment to all farmers in the Province of British Columbia, regardless of where they reside within this province. I would like the Minister to comment, if he would, on where he stands on collective bargaining and marketing in the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 895 ]

This is a matter that has been raised recently by the farmers' union. I know that they have presented briefs to the cabinet and to the other Opposition parties in this House.

I would like the Minister to comment on his position if he is prepared to do so regarding the matter of collective bargaining for farmers in the Province of British Columbia. If he is in favour of it, how would he suggest it be accomplished or what percentage of farmers does he feel should be in favour of collective bargaining before such a referendum, if that was the approach that was to be taken, would be put to the farming community of this province?

I would also like him to consider this problem of the due date on farm taxes, particularly when the due date falls at a time when the farmers have not yet harvested their crops in most parts of the Province of British Columbia.

Would it not be possible to amend the statutes to put that due date back to December 31 each year? We have all heard the arguments in favour of retaining it where it's at, because it brings the revenue into the treasury at a time when the people of the province are demanding works programmes and so on.

But the due date is not compatible with the farming economy. We've all heard that, yes. I admit that. It's not compatible with the farming economy of the province. Perhaps, during a time when the farming community generally has suffered distress, this would be one means of helping them out without really putting any great impost upon the Crown.

I'd like also to hear from the Minister his views on a farm implement Act for the Province of British Columbia. There's a matter that has been discussed in general terms by the Minister himself in recent months. This is the idea of cooperative food outlets in the Province of British Columbia. Is it the Minister's intention to subsidize the operations of these food outlets or subsidize in some manner the actual installation of them in different locations throughout the Province of British Columbia? If this is his position, how would he pay the subsidy and from what source would the funds be derived?

In the north of this province, particularly in that area around Fort Nelson, it is estimated that there are a million acres at least of arable land which can be turned into productive farmland. As a matter of fact, the previous government had considered launching a programme up there on an experimental basis to get a farm going. I'd like to know if the Minister is going to continue that programme in the Fort Nelson area — if that experimental farm will go ahead as it was planned by the previous government.

I'd also like to know the Minister's position on the alienation of Crown land by individuals who wish to get into agriculture in this province. Are you prepared to allow them to lease land in the future, of which they will eventually become the owners in fee simple? Certainly, when we have an area which potentially could house thousands of farms — if you take a million acres as the arable potential of Fort Nelson, there should be some incentive for people to go into the area.

We should find out what can be grown up there to the best advantage. This is one of the reasons that I was very interested in an experimental farm in that area. I think the day is long past when we should ask individuals to go up into an area like that on their own and invest all the money and capital that they have, unless we can show them that there is some future for them in the farming business in the Province of British Columbia.

Is it the Minister's intention to do anything about educational tax on farmland in the province? Does the Minister intend to increase the promotion of B.C.-grown products on some basis similar to the programme that was launched last year? Has the Department of Agriculture, jointly with the industrial development department, established a joint committee to study disparities in both domestic and export freight rates in Canada? If not, why not? Certainly. this was a recommendation of the agricultural committee a year ago.

There are a number of other questions that I'll be putting to the Minister during his estimates, probably on specific votes. There's one more point that I'd like to raise before I take my seat. That is the matter of your policy on veterinary clinics in the province.

Many areas do not have any veterinary services. Part of this is due to the fact that trained veterinarians are not failing off the trees, by any stretch of the imagination. The other is the fact that many veterinarians would like to establish in an area if there were some means of setting up a clinic from which they could operate.

I'm not suggesting that the province would have to own the clinics. But I would like to know the Minister's policy with regard to some type of support for veterinarians who wish to establish in the rural areas of the Province of British Columbia. Would he be prepared to consider some sort of financial assistance, even if that were just low-cost loans to them? Or is he prepared to consider the establishment of clinics throughout the province?

At the present time the only clinics available on a provincial basis, of course, are in the lower mainland. This does not really help, except in an experimental way, the veterinarians who live in northern B.C. or the Prince George area or over the west coast or wherever they may be located.

In our particular part of the country, the heavy emphasis is still on the treatment of farm animals.

[ Page 896 ]

Therefore, when you have sick cows or horses or large bovine species, it requires fairly good facilities to look after them properly. It's an expensive proposition. Young veterinarians particularly, who are just starting out in the business, would like to feel that some sort of financial assistance might be made available to them. From my discussions with them, they have indicated that they would prefer long-term low-cost loans rather than outright grants or having the provincial government own the clinics.

I would like the Minister, when he has the opportunity, to indicate his philosophy and perhaps the direction the Department of Agriculture intends to take in the handling of some of these matters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He may want to leave so I'd better take him first.

Canadian Wheat Board, the question of surpluses: it's not just the attitude of the wheat board; it's not just the attitude of the provincial government. It's the attitude of the federal government, of course; it's the attitude of the whole Canadian people. It's an investment that the whole country has to put in. The federal government has to be convinced first that this is a good thing and then convince the people at large that this is something that's worth supporting.

As far as the Department of Agriculture in B.C. is concerned, the previous Deputy used to argue that we should at all times have a billion bushels in storage — that this is nothing to be alarmed about; that we should start at that point.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I think you mentioned wheat. The billion, I believe, was total storage. Of course, we have had a good deal in excess of that on different occasions. Right now it's getting very low. As you say, there's danger that we will not meet our commitments. There's some concern that we're going to have trouble meeting our internal needs, let alone commitments to export.

Of course, all we can do, as you suggested, is make representations to the federal government and try to convince them that this should be longer range planning — that they should not panic so quickly when there is a temporary surplus. Of course, who can predict what happens in the rest of the world? There are all these problems. Still, we have to look at it and recognize that a billion bushels is not a large amount of grain to have in storage.

As far as a fair return to the B.C. farmer — yes, I think this is something we all subscribe to. When you were on this side of the House and I was on that side,
I used to argue the same way. We are bringing in some measures. We have introduced some already. We will be bringing in further ones. We're listening as you make contributions during this debate and other debates.

Hopefully, you will see an improvement in the return to farmers in the not-too-distant future, in no small degree related to the philosophy of the new Government. It's a matter of working these things out and trying to improve the lot for the primary producer in the Province of British Columbia. We're definitely committed to that and are very anxious that you see some early results.

The B.C. Hydro: their subsidy; their rural electrification programme. I think there was ample opportunity to discuss that when the Premier's estimates were up for discussions. I don't think there's anything further that I want to contribute to that.

Collective bargaining: well, of course, the NFU have made a presentation in favour of collective bargaining. They've suggested that we should introduce this legislation that would then encourage them to go out and get 50 per cent support for their programme before we go to the next step. Their support currently is in a relatively small area of the province. I am concerned that if we introduce legislation like this, it just might not be all that acceptable. Maybe in the future it will be. I don't know.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would prefer to see the NFU get out into the rest of the province and make some impact in other farming commodity groups and in other farming communities before they come for enabling legislation that would be specifically to help them organize.

I have nothing against them economically, politically, organizationally or anything else. But before we introduce legislation that other commodity groups might feel in some way would work against their interests, I would prefer the NFU to get out and talk to these other groups and get some measure of acceptance.

That's not closing the door on it necessarily. They have been talking to myself and to Members of the caucus. They have made a presentation, I believe, to the agricultural committee of the NDP caucus. I haven't had an opportunity to get up to date on that. There's no closed door; but my feeling at the moment is to go a bit slow on this.

The due date on farm taxes. Perhaps the Member has had a change of heart or maybe we just didn't know previously that when he was in the Government caucus he was pressing for this change in the due date on farm tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 897 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will recall that I was absent with leave for a period of three years and all kinds of things might have been said in those three years. Of course, there was no Hansard then during estimates, so even had I wanted to keep up to date I would not have had the …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the estimates? In committee? That's what I was talking about, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to the Hansard report of our committee deliberations.

I have discussed this. The Federation of Agriculture has discussed it. I don't think it's one of the things that they are most concerned about. This is available now to any farmer who wishes to apply for it. You may recall, and perhaps this answer was given to you in your caucus, that in changing the due date it wasn't so much a matter of getting at the farmland; it was getting at all the rest of the rural and industrial land and everything else that is taxed on that date.

Some special provision no doubt could be made for farmers en masse, but then not all farmers do have that annual income at the time the grain crop or the fruit crop is harvested. Many of them have their income coming in all during the year. In some commodity groups, certainly in dairying, the most profitable period is prior to this date.

So the system at the moment does not seem to be that inequitable. The farmers, I think, are quite well aware. The Federation of Agriculture, I believe, has on occasion made an attempt to let their members know one way or another that this option is open to them: that they may write in and simply ask. It's just that easy. So I'm not convinced that it's very important.

The Department of Finance, to whom I have made some representations, just feel that changes in their set-up are extensive enough so that it's really not warranted. Again, maybe something will happen. Maybe there'll be more pressure or maybe there'll be some reason advanced for pursuing it. But at this time I'm not prepared to push that with the Department of Finance.

Fort Nelson. The previous Minister of Agriculture discussed this with me to some extent after I assumed office. He was in to visit me a couple of times and this is one of the things he talked about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A million acres? Possibly. I don't know. I haven't had an opportunity to get up to that area myself. I have had some reports but nothing really much more than the information given to me by Mr. Shelford.

The experience we've had in the Peace River in the last four or five years — and you'll recall it's not just a crop failure of one year; it's near-failures of some four or five years and then a disastrous year on the end of it — does not really incline me towards putting a lot of money into the Fort Nelson area without some pretty careful investigation.

I'm persuaded that there may be a micro-climate situation up there. If there is, I just question in my mind, without any knowledge of the situation, whether it would extend to one million acres. However, again there's no closed door, but so far in my term of office I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. I think maybe I won't for a few more weeks.

Alienation of Crown land. At the present the policy with the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources — and the Minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) is out right now — I suggest you raise this when his estimates are up. As far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, we do want to extend the amount of Crown land that is available, particularly for ranching. We would like to see this.

We have nothing against leasing. I know that there are farmers who feel that they want to own. I have no particular hang-up myself on this one way or another. I think the farmers can be convinced it is better to have their capital in other things perhaps and not get it too closely tied up in land. However, I think that's something that would be better discussed under the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

The educational tax. Yes, I will be making further representations to the Executive Council. As the Premier has said, there will be further discussions in caucus on this question of removal of education tax on land. It may well be that there'll be some announcement to make later in the session, but not today.

Promotion of B.C. products. As I said to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), I would prefer that we discussed that under vote 6.

Freight rates will be a continuing battle with the federal government. You know the situation where you can buy B.C. screenings in Alaska that have gone through the Port of Prince Rupert $17 a ton cheaper than you can buy them in Prince Rupert. To me it's just nothing short of ridiculous. Certainly it does nothing to promote the conversion of this grain product into meat products which are worth a lot more to us and which, if we were going to export them, would be worth a lot more. Yet we're shipping this raw material out and subsidizing it for other people to buy it rather than subsidizing it for conversion in our own province.

Now this will be a continuing battle. It's something that's gone on for many decades and I think goes even beyond the terms of office of the previous administration. And it will be going on.

[ Page 898 ]

Vet clinics. The proposal did come from one veterinarian in particular that we go into some sort of an assistance programme to establish a vet clinic in Fort St. John. But the government might go in and put money into the physical facility and then find out that by the time we got it built, or maybe soon after that, the vet felt inclined to move somewhere else, to withdraw his services from that area. Possibly we couldn't find another vet to go in soon enough, yet we're stuck with the facility and no service.

The proposal that he welcomed — I'm not sure if he didn't advance it himself — was that he would put his money into it but we would help him, either with a grant or by making longer-term, lower-interest money available. He would have some investment in this himself and while he might still want to go somewhere else, he would wait until he found somebody to replace him, somebody who would take him out of his equity position in that clinic before he moved.

We welcome that idea; we're ready to support that idea; we're waiting for the enabling legislation that will be, if it isn't in, in this session to enable us to enter into arrangements like that.

The emphasis is not that we are concerned about the amount of money that might go into it but we want to maintain a service and want to go the best route to make sure that we do maintain that service.

The Peace River. I'm sorry, I missed the Peace River. This was a situation that has received a lot of publicity. It has been talked about on the other side of the House in particular; I don't think there has been very much said on this side to date.

I recognize that there was a disaster in the Peace River area in the 1972 crop year. I recognize also that it was one of a series of crop failures to a greater or lesser degree. To the best of my knowledge there was absolutely no assistance in the previous three or four crop failures. This year there was some assistance.

Perhaps the previous government was approached before we took office. Certainly this Government was approached very soon after it took office for some assistance for the people who had suffered such extensive crop losses in the Peace River — all crops — and the Government did consider it.

We were slow to bring up our own formula for assisting. We were slow because from the beginning we felt that the federal government had some obligation to assist the Peace River farmers. We felt that if we moved too quickly and announced our programme publicly too soon, then the possibility of getting the federal government to come along with it would be that much less.

While there were public comments back and forth, the details of our proposals were not made known publicly. They were discussed and amended from time to time but discussed within our own department and discussed with the federal Minister, first Mr.
Olsen and then, later on, Mr. Whelan.

The B.C. programme and the Alberta programme. Similar situations existed except that the losses, I think, were perhaps worse on the B.C. side generally speaking. The B.C. programme was better; it got more money to the farmers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not enough. O.K., they didn't get enough. I'll admit that. But it did give more to them than the Alberta programme.

Apart from that, our money went out to the farmers some five weeks earlier than the money went out to the…If you're distributing copies of my report and there's an extra one, I'd like to see it.

However, the money did go out on the B.C. side of the border over a month earlier than it went out on the Alberta side of the border. Apart from that, we cleared it with the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement to make sure that any money that was going in in the way of government assistance would not affect them if any of them were hard up enough that they went to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement for living expenses, The money we were putting in was to go into the productive unit, not to be used for living assistance unless the people involved wanted to use it that way. But if they were going to apply for help from the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, then the grants that they were getting from the government, in whatever form they were getting them, would not affect that.

I understand there were some questions about this, some complaints from some of the individuals. Whenever we heard about any of these we were able to get them straightened out. Certainly the policy of the government was that this would not affect anybody in applying for welfare.

A considerable amount of money was paid out. Our estimates as to what would be paid out were higher because the number of people applying were lower than we assumed and the average acreage was lower than we had figured. The farms apparently that had the trouble were smaller in acreage than we had anticipated.

There's a question on the order paper and I'm not sure whether I've answered that one yet. If it isn't, it's the only one that hasn't been answered.

In any case, the total payments out of the disaster fund were $755,165 to 1,432 farmers. Not a great deal of money each, an average provincial payment of $527.35.

I have a letter here from one person complaining that in his particular case, all he got was $137.50. But when you work that backwards, you find out then that he, with a family I think of four children, had apparently assumed that he was going to be able to

[ Page 899 ]

farm and support his family on 55 acres of grain land.

This is one of the problems. If they were dependent on grain, then they should be talking about not 55 acres, not the average 210 acres, but 500 or 600
acres of grain land. But too many of them are obviously — well, you'll have an opportunity — I can't really hear you. Too many of them were trying to get along on small acreages, or they weren't really full-time farming. Our programme was originally intended to help the full-time farmers.

Now looking at the figures that have come in since we announced our programme, since we paid out the money, I'm thinking that instead of limiting it to 400 acres, maybe what we really should have done was to have paid it out to those with 400 acres and over. It might have been more properly directed for those with the larger acreages. However, we went this route. It wasn't necessarily the end of it, and of course there have been other things.

When we were approaching the federal people and trying to sell our programme of assistance as compared to what they were prepared to offer, one of the things that I felt we needed was freight assistance for forage coming into the province. I was told that there was a great need for this.

After persuading the federal government, at first they said, "Well B.C. isn't going to get it." Alberta was going to get it and B.C. wasn't. This was the announcement that came out. Well there was a very hurried telephone call, telegrams, and finally word back, "Well O.K., we'll reconsider our position and B.C. will be included."

About a month after we were able to convince the federal government that B.C. should be included, the total number of people from the Peace River area that asked for this assistance - there may be more later on — but the total number up until a week ago was five.

Now it left me, I feel, as the Minister of Agriculture in B.C. with a bit of egg on my face; convincing the federal government how necessary, how important this programme was in the Peace River district, and then to find out that five people … now the figure may be up and may go up yet when people use up the local supplies; that's possible and I hope so. I hope that we will get this additional federal money in. Now that is a 50-50 sharing programme up to a maximum of $14 per ton.

That isn't all the money that went into the Peace River. You've talked about the money that went to the farms in the lower Fraser Valley. I think you will recognize that there is some difference. I think you'll recognize for example, that the potential crop in the Fraser Valley, the areas that you're talking about…if you are talking about, let's say potatoes, the potential gross selling value of the product from that land might be $ 1,000 as compared to something like $50 an acre in the Peace River. There is that difference for a start.

I think you'll recognize also that the insurance programme itself was not available to these people who were flooded in the lower Fraser Valley area or the other areas that were flooded. Those kinds of crops just weren't covered by the crop insurance programme. It wasn't available. But they were paying something else; they were paying a dyking tax, and we talked a little earlier about the dyking situation.

They were paying a dyking tax which was to protect them from this very disaster happening. Now, the protection didn't work, so the people who were putting the capital behind the dyking programme obviously had to accept some responsibility for this dyking system not working.

So they did accept this responsibility. I'm sure the farmers in those areas felt that they weren't getting enough for their product either. Apart from that, while they weren't paying a dyking tax in the Peace River, they did have the opportunity to pay into a crop insurance programme, a crop insurance programme that did return some of them an average of $3,822. Now this is pretty high compared to the average I said of the provincial payment per farmer of $527. The crop insurance programme was available, and those that took advantage of it averaged $3,822 per individual.

Now the crop insurance programme was attacked, and it wasn't good enough. It's better now. You'll recall that I announced previously that although the federal government has offered to make changes, it's in no position to deliver yet, and may not be. We don't know what's going to happen this year. We do know that the Minister of Agriculture wants to, and he's introduced a bill, and if the government lives long enough, then likely this will be passed. We'll be in then. Whether it does or not, this government is now writing, and has been for some months, writing policies on the new basis, so that the federal government will be paying 50 per cent of the premium, the applicant 50 per cent, and the total administration costs which previously were shared by the provincial and federal government - the total administration costs — will now be borne by the provincial government. Big deal? Well it's half a million dollars, roughly.

Last year the administration vote was in excess of $800,000. This year it's bound to be over a million, because there are more applications coming in. But it's a big deal, it's a big deal for the farmer, who has had his premium reduced by about one-third. That is a big deal and this is the important part of it. More people will be coming in.

Last year, people who paid a premium, as I say, got $3,822. Their average premium was $436. Now they said they couldn't afford to pay the premium and that's why they didn't take the programme. They didn't have to pay the premium in full. The average

[ Page 900 ]

deposit required at that time was $75. So for a deposit of $75, they could insure themselves to a considerable extent against crop loss. They chose to go the self insured route. In spite of a history of four years of near failures, they chose 'not to spend that $75 on the average to win protection against another disaster. Now that was their choice. They made the wrong choice.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Farmer's Union was recommending that they not take it out.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I suggest you take that up with the Farmer's Union. I have already, and I understand that this year they are recommending that the farmers do take it out, but I cannot be responsible for what the Farmer's Union recommended some time before I ever took this office. Certainly, if I have any influence on them now, I didn't have any at all then. However, they should have taken the insurance, more of them should have. If they had, the crop insurance fund, no doubt, would be out of funds by now, because already it's in a deficit position with respect to the grain portion of the programme, by $2,675,000. Now that is how much money has gone into that Peace River area in the way of crop insurance in excess of what has come out of it.

Now money has been going in there, it's not just the acreage payment that came from the Province of British Columbia, it's not just the acreage payment, which I don't think has come from the federal government yet, to the best of my knowledge. It's not the freight assistance programme. It's not just the PITA payments that have gone out. There is also these crop insurance payments that have gone out.

Now you might say that all of this is not good enough. I say it's not good enough. The farmers up there have talked to me and I've urged them to keep the pressure on the federal Member, on the federal government to try to get more assistance — to get the federal government to take another look at it. I waited for a while and let that campaign build up, and it did build up. The Members here have talked to me and I've urged them to go after the federal Member. The pressure has been building up to get the federal government to do something more. After it had built up to a certain point I then got into it myself and wrote a letter — I've just forgotten the date now — to the federal Minister, urging him myself to take another look at this, to recognize the disaster and to do something about it.

In addition to that, we are trying to work out a supplemental programme in our department. We haven't the details yet, we're working on it, and again hopefully before this session is over we'll be able to announce something further. Now I'm not just dangling this in front of you. We are working on something that will apply, rather than on a general basis as the previous programme did, and it went incidentally to those who insured as well as those who didn't, because we wanted those who did insure not to bear part of the cost of those who didn't. We felt that that was the only fair way to do it. So it went to all of them. But the new programme, at the moment we're thinking, will go to those who do desperately need some kind of assistance to get their crop into the ground, which is in line I suppose, with the argument coming out now from the federal Minister that we need to increase grain production in this country.

Certainly we need the grain from the Peace River down here at the coast right now. The reflection in the cost of hatching-eggs that we were talking about yesterday, the broilers that we were talking about, the eggs that I talked about earlier, we need the grain badly. We need more of it, we need other things as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Minister, a supplemental question on this whole matter. Assuming that the federal government will in some way provide additional assistance, in cooperation with the provincial government, will your department then consider a payment of an equal basis or some other basis along with the federal government, if they're going to get involved in it?

Secondly, you are presently working on a programme which would provide assistance, I presume, in certain areas such as purchasing seed grain, for instance, and fertilizer and things of this nature for this coming spring for people who are in no financial position to do that for themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well of course, if I can take a lead from the previous Premier of the province and say that I never answer hypothetical questions. Now he said if something happens, will we do something? Well, I'd like to see that something happen and see the nature of it before I give any consideration to what sort of recommendations I make for more cooperation between the federal and provincial levels of government. I'm just saying, let me see what happens and then consider that.

The other programme is not just a matter of purchasing the seed grain, it's the availability of it, and it's extremely unlikely that there's any suitable seed grain in that area at all. Very little, if any. Now this is one of the things we're aware of and it's one of the things we're considering.

[ Page 901 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some cracks about Oak Bay as usual, but I think the party has a responsibility to talk about agriculture even if I happen to come from a riding where there are few farms.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: I think there's one farm in Oak Bay and there's a few in Saanich. Part of Saanich is in the Oak Bay riding, so I claim some connection with farming.

Yesterday comments were made about the role of farming in the Province of British Columbia, not just whether it's economical or uneconomical or otherwise, but as to what is the role of farming. It seemed very strange to me, Mr. Chairman, coming as it did from the Social Credit benches, when I recall just before the election last year the leader of the Social Credit Party, the then Premier — who is now the Member for Mozambique, I believe — addressed the B.C. Beef Cattle Growers' Association. Lo and behold, he said that we don't need farmers in British Columbia and that we can import all that we need to feed the people of British Columbia.

I think it's just a little hard to swallow, when we have Members from that party standing up and pleading that we have long-range planning and that there should be a very responsible attitude taken to agriculture in this province. I certainly agree and certainly our party thinks that agriculture is an extremely vital part of the total economy of British Columbia.

It's not only vital because it produces food and produce on which we exist. But to suggest that we can live on imports, because they appear to be much cheaper at the present time hardly makes sense. If, in fact, we reached the day when we had to depend on imports for our food, I would presume that we would be held up to ransom by food producers outside our own province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are now.

MR. WALLACE: I'm coming to that, if you just have patience, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not doing anything about it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, just give me a chance and I'll ask him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him what he's doing over there.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, I'm going to tell him what we would do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he's doing nothing.

MR. WALLACE: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, even the question of employment is significant in the province, regardless of the great importance of food, in the processing, canning, distributing, packaging industries. We may find fault with them incidentally as we go along, but they do create jobs. The figure was given on inquiry is that perhaps a total of 160,000 jobs would not be far out of line, directly or indirectly related to agriculture. This is a very substantial figure.

Although a lot of lip service has been paid to the farmer, I think some figures should be quoted as to what exactly the farmer does earn. The net income per farmer, for example, from Statistics Canada in 1966 was $4,440. In 1969, it was $4,200. In 1971, it was $4,680. In the space of five years, the net average farm income per farmer really hadn't moved at all. I think if we look at the fate of the average income earner between 1966 and 1971, we must all agree that the average citizen has done much better than the farmer.

While I have not intention, Mr. Chairman, of talking about Bill 42, I think nevertheless — to touch upon the subject lightly — it is fair to say that if there is to be rather extensive legislation affecting the farmer — and the figures show that he at the present time is not getting a fair deal in our so-called affluent society, and I don't think he is — I think that, this whole issue of the degree to which his ability to earn income and to look after his own financial fortunes has to be looked at extremely carefully, when these figures show that he is not increasing his income proportionately, as are the other wage and income earners in society.

The Member on my right says, "Well, what is the Government doing about it?" I think that's a fair question. Another statistic I have here, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is that — this is not from Statistics Canada but from the brief which the farm industry presented to the Minister — 82 per cent of farmers receive less than they would if they were on federal unemployment insurance.

Putting that in the total context of our present society, it seems to me that if this is the kind of return that farmers are getting — and as far as I'm aware they're certainly not a segment of society that works a 40-hour week, nor do they have many of the amenities and fringe benefits of other income earners. Therefore, in quoting that statistic, it just further bears out the fact, I think, that the farmer is not flourishing, in comparison to many other segments of society.

The question of planning was raised yesterday and

[ Page 902 ]

it was suggested that this Government doesn't look far enough ahead or doesn't come up with specific planning. Certainly, when we consider so much of the technology which has enabled us to send a man to the moon and develop the most complicated mechanisms and machinery for saving human life, to take an example which we're all aware of which is very costly, it does indeed seem to me that we have such dramatic fluctuations in the availability of grain. One year, you're paying the farmer $10 an acre, I think it was, to grow grass. A couple of years later, we're screaming blue murder because there's not enough grain even to feed our livestock and the price of meat is soaring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's poor planning.

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm saying — it's poor planning. One has to consider some of the very intricate things in human affairs which seem to be planned very well nowadays. Why can't we bring some of this same efficiency and insight into the planning of food production?

I would add to the comment from the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) that in this regard it would seem to make a great deal of sense for governments, both federal and provincial, to assist in creating storage facilities. I wouldn't begin to question the Minister whether it should be 500 million bushels or a billion bushels. But certainly it's very obvious that it doesn't make sense to sell all the grain when there happens to be a good crop and the prices seem O.K. if, in fact, one year later the price is going to be doubled and we're going to be screaming for it.

I'd like the Minister to comment on 1) whether or not he agrees with the fact that this, in general, should be a policy, and 2) to what degree would he anticipate federal, perhaps 50-50, sharing in the creation of more storage facilities.

Another point that was mentioned when I discussed this with the farmers up north was that even the grain handling at the present time is antiquated. The same machinery has been there for years and years. It is the feeling of the farmers that even if modern machinery could be provided this would make the operation altogether more efficient.

The Member on my right talks about problems from outside of British Columbia. This also makes interesting investigation. I think the lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has mentioned this in previous debates. It's sad to me, as a person who is not close to the subject, to hear the same questions being asked year after year after year in this debate. It seems to me that there are several underlying principles in this whole problem of agriculture. This is the fourth year I've been here and the same questions are being asked, in large measure.

For example, the question of irrigation. I made some inquiry about Washington, where the net cost to the farmer is $2 per acre. Apparently in the Okanagan it's in the region of $30 per acre for irrigation. It stands to reason, with a basic cost of this difference from producers outside of British Columbia, that their products will be cheaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, the water runs downhill in Washington.

MR. WALLACE: In Washington. When I went looking for specific examples, the farmer quoted me a 1971 example …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You talking about manure again? The 1971 strawberries, Mr. Chairman, in Washington and Oregon apparently were offered to the processors at 16 cents a pound. In British Columbia the cost of production of the strawberries was 19 cents a pound. I'm told that for obvious reasons the strawberry growers were left with little choice but to sell at the 16 cent price.

The other question that was brought to my attention in the same area of agriculture was the whole question of lettuce grown in California. Here again we have B.C. farmers having great difficulty competing with imported California lettuce. Apparently they're able to have two or three crops. When the tail end of the first crop is reached, they're in a hurry to get going on the second crop. They dump the last part of the first crop at any price, more or less, wherever they can. I'm told that this seriously depresses the price of lettuce in this province.

So we get to the question of what this Government is prepared to do about the problem of dumping of products from outside British Columbia. I think this, Mr. Chairman, brings us to the nub of many of the agricultural problems. It's obviously very much in the hands of the federal government. The provincial government does not have the jurisdiction to impose tariffs. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that even there the rule is — and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong — as long as a product is brought in here from let us say California or Oregon or Washington, if they previously sold a fraction of their crop at the B.C. price, they can then dump it in British Columbia at a depressed price. They only have to show, apparently, that they have previously sold part of their crop at the B.C. price. It might be 1 per cent of the crop. This is apparently the phony — at least I think it's phony — qualifications to get the benefits to them of dumping their product at depressed prices.

In talking with the farmers and their representatives, I find an unfortunate cynicism. They say that at the federal level the federal government is much more

[ Page 903 ]

concerned with giving priority consideration in international trade to many products other than agriculture. One representative — I think he was the president of the farmers' association — used the phrase that the "wheels of international trade are greased with agricultural products", that really at the federal level we haven't much hope of negotiating better tariff or better protective measures against dumping.

I think the Minister already referred to it this afternoon, that they've already "pushed the panic button" — was the phrase used by Mr. Harold Danforth. I'd just like to quote briefly that he feels that the tariff reductions on imported food products announced in the budget will cut the very heart out of some parts of the Canadian food producing and processing industry. I'm quoting the farm critic Harold Danforth.

He told the Commons that:

"The budget tariff reductions applying to imported meats and out-of-season fruits and vegetables have upset the farm industry as I have never seen before. The government had obviously pressed the panic button in its worry about rising food costs, referring to the savings the tariff cut should bring to consumers."

The point he makes and makes very well, and the point I was trying to make at the start of my remarks, was that it fails to realize the disruption which the cuts would trigger in the farm and processing industries and the unemployment they would cause.

It's very obvious that on some of the very fundamental problems certainly affecting horticultural products, the difficulty for this Government must lie at the federal level. I would like to hear the Minister comment as to the hope we might have of progress at the federal level. For example, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is no speed with which the provincial farmers can get action if dumping begins. I understand — and I'd like the Minister's comments on this — that there's a great deal of red tape involved, and that sometimes you can finally obtain federal action, but it's about a month after the product has been dumped in the province and the damage is done.

With regard to negotiations of tariffs, I think that the Minister probably knows very well that the GATT negotiations are about to begin again sometime in 1973. Certainly the farmers I talked to tell me they're even more afraid than they have been before, in the light of the federal budget, that even some of the tariff protection that we now have will probably be bargained away.

There are other points I'll move over. One interesting point I'd like the Minister to comment upon. I was informed that fertilizer produced by Cominco — I think it's called Elephant Brand fertilizer — is now selling more cheaply in the U.S. than it does in Canada. Presumably there's an explanation for that but again I'd like to hear the Minister's comment.

To be specific, Mr. Chairman, and make some — I hope — useful proposals, the first part of our policy would be that the farmer basically, in general terms related to the rest of society, is not getting a fair deal. We're not the least bit more encouraged to think that he will get a fair deal in relation to some of the other policies, which we can't name at the moment, about to be introduced to the House.

The protein producers, I understand, are probably relatively well off, again in general terms, comparing them to the grain farmer and the horticulturalist. Nevertheless, the question of taxes on the land and educational tax on the land is an important point. We are disappointed that this was a very definite election commitment which the socialist Government made in August.

For the few years that I've been in the House, actually, this was a policy which the socialist part very clearly espoused. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I feel that while the Premier has been very frank in stating that there's a difference of opinion in cabinet, since the farmers of all people are in the poorest financial shape, surely there could be some immediate action to remove the educational tax from farmland.

I know the Minister stated in a speech earlier that he doesn't think that that would make a very substantial improvement for the farmers. Despite his comments on the Peace River situation, Mr. Chairman, I think that when you're in the trouble they're in, every little helps.

I was also under the impression that succession duty removal was another commitment in the election — to take succession duty off farms passing between members of the family. I'm not aware that that commitment has been met either. I recognize the help that was rendered in reducing the tax on gasoline.

We would also propose, as our attempt to control dumping, to seek from the federal government an agreement on an automatic surtax formula. Where any country does dump products, an automatic duty should be applied to bring the price of the imported product up to the cost of production of the B.C. product. In discussion with the farmers, I find it interesting that they're just asking for fair play in trying to compete. They're not asking that the province try to keep products out of B.C. or give the farmer unfair advantage. But they certainly feel that if some other state begins to import goods at a price below the cost of production for the Canadian or B.C. Farmer, then of course they just cannot stay in business.

We would also attempt to negotiate fairer conditions for products that we're exporting from the province, We would also support a policy that's already been mentioned — a specific, positive cam-

[ Page 904 ]

paign to buy B.C. products and to advertise and promote in ways open to us the fact that it benefits all the people in B.C. If housewives and consumers buy B.C. products.

I had a visit only today, Mr. Chairman, from farmers who are in the egg business who tell me that the price has stayed at 50 cents a dozen for a long time but that the feed for the hens has gone from $72 a ton in September and is now $95 a ton. There again, if the cost of production is soaring and the marketing board has maintained the price, Mr. Chairman — it is repetitive to say so — but I can't think of any other segment of society that would tolerate this particular attitude to their financial fortunes at a time when, in almost any other area of society you can look at, we have bargaining procedures of one kind or another whereby the person receiving income in some measure has his income related to cost of production and the standard of living. But here apparently this does not apply.

I asked about the fact that the minimum wage does not apply to farm workers. The answer I get is very clear and simple: it may not apply in written legislation but farm workers quite naturally know that everybody else in society is getting $2 an hour. One can't blame the farm worker for expecting at least that minimum despite the fact, as I've pointed out earlier, that some of the farmers themselves, if they calculate their income on the basis of hours worked, aren't getting $2 an hour.

One interesting point I would like the Minister to comment upon, which is a little more lighthearted — is the whole question of some of the research work being done under the term, I understand, called "hydroponics," which is a new method of growing produce in a fluid medium with nutrients added to the medium in a closed environment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not exactly new.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if it isn't new it certainly isn't widely used as far as I understand.

Some of the interesting points that were made on this is the fact that weather isn't a factor to the degree that the crop — this was tomatoes…Toemah-toes? Toe-may-toes? Which?

AN HON. MEMBER: Toe-mah-toes.

MR. WALLACE:…which were being discussed. The comment was made — again without referring to the bill — that with urban sprawl the way it is, if we can produce the same amount of plants in a smaller area, and particularly if you're not subject to the vagaries of weather, then of course this may be something that, with an increasing population, we simply have to look to on a larger scale.

I'm referring to a plant in Delta which states that their findings have been that it is a commercially feasible undertaking. The interesting piece of information is that of the 30 million pounds of tomatoes eaten annually, 28 million pounds are imported. Therefore, it would seem if we can make a successful production of this particular crop under these circumstances, I wonder if the Minister would care to make a comment as to whether perhaps incentives will be given to widen this if it is commercially feasible? Or, alternatively, is there any obvious wisdom in increasing it to many other crops besides tomatoes?

Finally, I have to return to the situation in the Peace River country because it is quite clear from contacts in that area and in talking to people who see the situation at firsthand that many people are certainly facing …

With respect, Mr. Chairman, through you, money may have been paid in to the farmers in that area but the farmer is in all kinds of debts in relation to machinery and bank loans. I understand the situation is really grim.

Let's not have recriminations as to whether or not they should or should not have crop insurance or whether the last government didn't do this or that. The fact is that many of these farmers are now in desperate financial straits. I understand that the financial lending businesses in the area would perhaps be more likely to give further loans and financial assistance if there could be some moratorium, let us say for a year, on payments on the existing debt and interest.

The feeling seems to be quite clear that unless there is a hope of future capital, there certainly will be foreclosures and bankruptcies. The situation for many farmers will get beyond the point of no return.

I have a question on the order paper in general terms about regional designation by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE). I addressed the question to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

The question was raised in the federal House just the other day on this whole question of regional economic expansion. The answer given was that the Minister is sympathetic but the initiative must come from the provinces. This being the case, I can't think of a more appropriate situation than the Peace River situation if we are likely to receive the kind of money which Mr. Marchand certainly made available to other areas in eastern Canada, which I am sure were no less or more worthy of the needs of the Peace River area.

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would consider seeking such designation of that area under the DREE agreement.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this party feels that the policies of the Department of Agriculture are not meeting the needs either of the people in the industry or the people of this province. We feel that one of the

[ Page 905 ]

policies in particular has certainly got a degree of effect on the farmer and yet this provincial government really does not have the power to control the factors which are making farming uneconomic. This again refers to the extreme importance of provincial federal negotiation and sharing agreements and legislation such as anti-dumping legislation.

We feel that to have done generally so little for the farmer for the reasons I've outlined, and finally in recent days to be bringing in policies which place him at a much-to-be-regretted disadvantage to his future and his financial welfare compared to the rest of society, that we would like to move that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) be reduced from $ 24,000 to $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An amendment to vote 3: moved that the salary of the Minister of Agriculture be reduced from $ 24,000 to $1. Now the debate will be on the amendment.

I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): A motion has been moved to reduce the salary of the Minister of Agriculture. On behalf of my colleagues, I must reject outright this motion and everything that preceded the motion.

We listened to what the Member had to say. He examined the record of agriculture in the Province of British Columbia in preceding years and until now. He mentioned such things as the suffering of the farmers in areas of the province because of damage done by weather to crops. He examined the whole field of the operations of agriculture, not only in other parts of Canada but throughout North America, and the impact that that had on agriculture in British Columbia.

In other words, he tried to relate to this Minister all of the vagaries of the well controlled private enterprise system which he supports and which we reject. I suggest that his vote of nonconfidence should not have been with this Minister or this Government but in the system which he has so stoutly defended year after year in this House.

The Government and the Minister of Agriculture spent a great deal of time in northern British Columbia examining the damage that was done there to the crops in that area. This Government did make a substantial cash contribution to help the farmers during this very difficult period. The suggestion was made that the Government did not do it enough.

I'm not going to say that they should have had more insurance or anything else, I'm not going to say that at all. But the fact remains that there are senior governments to whom local districts and individuals must turn when they have problems. I suggest that the provincial government showed itself and that Minister showed himself much more understanding and much more receptive to the plea of the farmers than did the federal jurisdiction in Canada.

Had the federal jurisdiction, which after all is the prime taxing authority in this country, had they shown the same understanding and the same concern for the farmers of northern British Columbia as this Minister and this Government did, then certainly the farmers would have had a much easier time.

I suggest too, that in the setting up of his whole department, this Minister has indicated a concern for agriculture in British Columbia unmatched in the history of this province. Unmatched in the history of this province.

I stood on that side of the House for years and pointed out the fact that it wasn't really the amount of money that was spent by the Department of Agriculture that determined how much help Government could give agriculture in the Province of British Columbia. Farmers have always said that they want help, not on a hand-out basis, but help so they could help themselves. That is the new direction that agriculture is taking in this Province of British Columbia — to help farmers to help themselves. The Member who just sat down really couldn't have examined the estimates that are succeeding this particular vote. Otherwise he would have seen the brand new help that is coming to farmers in British Columbia so they can help themselves.

I have said from that side of the House time after time that we must help the farmers to determine that the crop they are growing is the proper variety and the proper kind. They must know what the market is and grow produce to fit that market. There has been absolutely no research done in this province by any previous administration to accomplish that. But set up in the estimates of this department right now is, for the first time, a research agency to help the farmer to help himself.

In the estimates that succeed this particular vote, under the jurisdiction and demand of that Minister, we find a substantial increase in the number of agriculturists that are going to, again on the local level, help the farmer to help himself — give him the guidance and help to overcome his problems, to produce better crops to fit the market needs of the people of British Columbia. There are other areas — I think it's 15 more laboratory technicians to do the research in the individual crops, how they operate, what they require to become better.

Never before in the history of this province have we had that help. I suggest to you that this motion is not based on the work that has been done by this Minister; the new directions in which this Minister is taking agriculture — to preserve agriculture in the province of British Columbia. What this motion reflects is the determination by the leader of that group — not the House Leader — that agriculture has no place in the Province of British Columbia. Like

[ Page 906 ]

many other people in the private sector of this province, they have written agriculture off. They have said, "Well, it's not worth saving. It's too late. Let it go. Let the entrepreneurs have it. Let it go to rack and ruin."

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand here now — this Government will never neglect agriculture in the Province of British Columbia. This Government will never write agriculture off. Agriculture must have a place in the future of this province — this Minister is going to ensure it and we certainly will vote against this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I haven't had a chance to read the words of the motion but I understand it is to reduce the Minister's salary. I want to say that this party, the Social Credit and the official Opposition, do not want to enter into a frivolous debate about the Minister's salary. What we want to talk about is the Minister's competence and his philosophy.

Having listened to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I must say that it is impressive, the intellectual cosmos he revolves in when it comes to agriculture. I would suggest, if I could sing, you would hear, "Yahoo, the operating room is calling." That might be where that Member's competence lies.

He talks in terms of generalities, and this has been the problem of agriculture for years. Everybody has a theoretical solution, but no one has a gut solution. That is what the farmers of this province want and that is the responsibility of that Minister, what he is in the position to do — come up with some gut, practical solutions to the farming problems in British Columbia.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, and I'm not defending the Minister, talks about streamlining transportation of grain to the ports and this may well have some merit. But what is it going to do for the farmer? The intestinal problem is that no matter how much grain you get there, if there aren't men on the docks to load that grain at the crucial time, it doesn't go anywhere. It is the farmer who takes the loss. So you have to get down to the intestinal problems of labour when you are talking about the problems of the farmer.

He talks about the import trades and the export regulations and he is right in this area, but still it is a theoretical problem. He doesn't seem to recognize, if you take vegetables for example, that California can produce three crops a year. In British Columbia we can only produce one crop a year.

So, number one, we don't have enough production ability to meet our market needs internally on a year-round basis. He couldn't begin to suggest that the consumer in British Columbia is only going to eat cabbage or cauliflower for a period of two months a year and then not have any the rest of the year. The force of the consumer market is far too strong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Broccoli for the rest of the year.

MRS. JORDAN: So until science can come up with a way in which you can store cauliflower or cabbages or other fresh produce — tomatoes — on a year-round basis, that is produced in British Columbia for a year-round market, we are just orbiting when we talk about this problem.

Weather — we have to face the realities of life that, in many parts of British Columbia, weather is our worst enemy when it comes to a surviving and viable agriculture industry. I would think of the Okanagan and I think of the area I represent, North Okanagan, which once was a very large apple producing area. It is the weather that is our enemy and then the lack of markets.

I am sure the Minister is aware, and it might be of information to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, that the federal-provincial study that is going on in the Okanagan Valley now has predicted that there will be a decrease in fruit production acreage, but an increase in productivity and product.

So their problem is not lack of land to produce on, and really at this time it is not lack of water to make that land productive. It is the fact that there isn't a profitable market for their product. We haven't got a big enough market in British Columbia. We haven't got a big enough market in western Canada and there isn't a big enough market in Canada. So we have to be in the area of international marketing when it comes to some of our products in British Columbia, such as fruit.

The egg marketing situation and in part the milk production situation has been able to paint a brighter picture in the last few years because we can control our production to our utilization and our internal market. We can make, if not profitable, at least put it in a financial position where it can survive.

We can't do that in the fruit industry and we can't do that in the vegetable industry and we can't do that in the grape industry and we can't do that in the cattle industry. They are all part of farming.

We would think that if that Member had stuck to more of the, as I said, the intestinal issues of the farming problem instead of fiddling around with the Minister's salary — he's only been there six months and while I don't protect him, at least this party is fair enough to give him a chance to come up with some problems his government has increased. —

I must also say that when I listened to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I can't help but entertain a smile. He tickles me each year when he …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 907 ]

MRS. JORDAN: When he nostalgically talks about the Ashcroft potato and he nostalgically talks about the farms in the Okanagan and the lower mainland. But it's his party, his partners in Ottawa who have taken an exact opposite position to the farmers in British Columbia. Some examples have been cited in the previous debate and I won't go over them.

Let me give one example in the Okanagan. We are trying desperately to develop a fruit concentrate industry which will utilize the apples which are no longer acceptable on the market. What does the federal government do? Over the past 10 years they have increased their imports of fruit concentrates to Canada by 400 per cent, Mr. Chairman. Then they put a little label on them that says they're processed in Canada and they send it to the United States. Then they say, "We Canadians are exporting so much fruit concentrate." It's that type of Liberal policy that has contributed to the serious agricultural problem in British Columbia today.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get down to some intestinal reactions. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) generalized, but I'd like to quote some figures, when we're talking about income to farmers and what is happening in British Columbia and in Canada. I'll quote one of the federal Ministers — his figures don't agree with the Statistics Canada figures — but I will quote from the British Columbia Orchardist of November-December, 1972, and it's quoting the then federal cabinet Minister, who says that the average income of Canadian farmers is $4,352 per farm, and that the average net income of farm families in Canada today is $3,890.

When we're talking in terms of when you get the grain to the port; when you get our apples to the port for export; when you get our apples off the trees ready to be transported to Vancouver or to the Arctic or to eastern Canada, how does labour play a role? I'd like to examine this.

If you look at farm wages over the past few years you find that today the average farmer works a 70 hour week and his average wage is $1.64 an hour. This doesn't take into consideration any return on his capital investment, in his land, his buildings, his equipment or in his rolling stock.

For construction workers the average pay is $4.77 an hour. For factory workers in Canada the average pay is $3.28 an hour. For general work in hotels and motels and service industries across Canada, which includes the low-wage areas of the Maritimes and the prairie provinces, even they are $1.96 an hour. These people don't have any capital investment. These people work an average of eight hours a day and a 40 hour week. But the farmer, who works for a 70 hour week on the average, gets an hourly average rate of $1.64 — many don't earn even that much.

I would suggest to the Minister that one of the most serious problems he has is the pressure that is building up between the consumer and the farmer. How much do we spend on food in Canada? We spend a smaller proportion today of our income on food than we ever did before. Between 1961 and 1971 the general price index increased by 33.4 per cent, but in the same period the retail food price increased by only 27.4 per cent.

If you would like some examples of what we're paying today for food, I suggest you look at what an hour's work in a factory brought in 1971 and 10 years earlier. For example, sirloin steak — if you enjoy that — one hour's work in a factory in 1961 bought 1.9 pounds of meat, but one hour's work in a factory in 1971 bought 2.4 pounds of meat.

Pork chops — one hour's work in a factory in 1961 bought 2.5 pounds; in 1971, 3.7 pounds. Milk — and they're just undergoing a price increase now which the consumer is objecting to — in 1961 one hour's work bought 7.8 per cent of a quart; in 1971, 9.6 per cent of a quart. Apples: in 1961, 10.3 pounds; in 1971 one hour's work bought 15.5 pounds. Bread, the staff of life: in 1961 11.5 pounds and in 1971 15.8 pounds.

Canadians today spend less of their earnings proportionately on food than anywhere else in any other country with the exception of the United States. In the United States they spend 18.3 per cent of their income on food. In Canada we spend 19.3 per cent of our income on food. In Sweden, that bastion of socialism, they pay 25 per cent of their monthly income on food. In France, another strongly socialist country, they pay 27.5 per cent. In Britain, which is rocking under the problems of labour management conflict, they pay 23.7 per cent of their income.

I think when reviewing food costs …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't want to interrupt the Member particularly speaking, but if this is to be a long attack on the salary of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) perhaps I could go out for a few moments. I am not sure whether there is a long Opposition attack on his salary or not at this point. Do you have some plans?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member try to relate her remarks …

MRS. JORDAN: That's a frivolous comment, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member try to relate her comments to the amendment?

[ Page 908 ]

MRS. JORDAN: What I am trying to point out in relation to your salary is that you can argue all you want about figures, but it is the real problem that counts. I'll get to the Minister's salary in just a minute.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In this debate on the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. If you don't want to listen to these figures, Mr. Minister, we may change our mind and not vote for your salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: We're not going to pass your salary for nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, please?

MRS. JORDAN: You've got a job to do. You've created some …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you address the Chair, please?

MRS. JORDAN:…problems which are unbelievable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman.

What are the farmer's receipts? What is his salary? When reviewing food costs you should remember — and I'll cite three examples — that the farmer gets: 17 cents out of 33 cents spent on a quart of milk; 57 cents for every dollar spent on beef; 2 cents for wheat on a 25 cent loaf of bread. So I would suggest that there isn't a labour union in the world that would tolerate this type of inequity.

Over the last few years it's well to remember, when we're talking salaries, that wholesale food prices have gone up 20 per cent, retail food prices have gone up 43 per cent and farm prices have gone up 6 per cent.

Women in the labour force have received 20 per cent average increase and the union's increase for the males has been a 26 per cent average.

When we're talking about this problem of agriculture and what some of the solutions are, in part of the debate around the philosophy that's been introduced by that Minister in the bills in this House has come a lot of discussion about 8 hour days and 7 hour days and 35 hour work weeks. I'd like to give you a reaction from a farmer, and I'm going to quote him, because we've had theoretical reactions, the lawyers have been in the debate and the doctors have been in the debate. Let's get some farmers in the debate.

He points out as his reason why this Minister in earning his salary must come to grips with this problem of labour and income. It's on the subject that he picked up out of the paper from one of the Hon. Members in the NDP, stating why labour needed to have shorter work hours. He says:

"Since affected by seasons, livestock, weather, that Member should remember that farmers cannot operate on regular short work weeks. If farmers went to a 35 hour week, food would become very scarce. Or if they hired two shifts, food would become very expensive. Yet part of our costs and part of our lack of profit comes from the action of organized labour acting in their own interest, which is rightfully their intent, but with — no consideration for the other sectors of society.

"Shorter city work hours increase the food c o s t s spread between producers and consumers….

and he's right.

"In addition many city products and services are becoming unavailable to the rural people because of the cost and the time factor in transporting. Rural areas cannot be adequately served by public utilities, repair shops, parts depots and other essential services in less than a 7 day work week."

He's right. It a farmer is plowing on Sunday and his plow breaks down, how can he wait until Monday to have it repaired? He has to have those service centres open. If they're going to increase their cost to him, then he has to have a better return for his produce.

"Pressure for short work hours increases the tendency to automation, which in my mind increases unemployment, which in turn decreases the money available for food purchases."

There's a farmer …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), he knows what it's all about. He isn't sitting in a plushy chair in this chamber. He's out there farming. It's his money that's on the line and his sweat and his labour and his knowledge that's on the line. You should be concerned, Mr. Minister of Labour.

Farmers cannot compete on the labour market and keep their sons on the farms when there's such a large difference in working hours and return between city and country occupations. This farmer, Mr. Chairman, puts it into a poem and I'd like to share it with the Members of this House. I'd ask all of you who are

[ Page 909 ]

interested in the labour movement to just remember this poem. Maybe it sums up in his words, better than any of us can say, what he'd like in life. He's a dairy farmer. He calls it "The Lament of a Dairy Farmer." He says:

"I long for a cow of modern make
That milks five days for leisure's sake,
That sleeps on Saturday, snores on Sunday,
And starts afresh again on Monday.

I wish for a herd that knows the way
To wash each other every other day,
That never bothers to excite us
With chills or fever or mastitis.

I sigh for a new and better breed
That takes less grooming and less feed,
That has the reason, wit and wisdom
To use the seat and the flushing system.

I pray each weekend long and clear
Less work to do from year to year,
And cows that reach production's peak,
All in a five-day working week.

To guide the farmers at their job
And show those stupid breeders how
To propagate a five-day cow."

I think he has a real point there. His name is Mr. McNair and he lives in Enderby. He's a very fine farmer and he's got a good sense of humour. But it's a plea. It's a plea to the Minister of Agriculture — whose salary we're discussing now — to get off the theoretical trend and to get down to some of the real problems of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the question on the amendment now be put.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): I very rarely, Mr. Chairman, rise in the debates in the Minister of Agriculture's estimates. My riding is somewhat urban. I'm told that when my predecessor, Ray Perrault, was the Member for this riding, he used to make an annual speech in the Minister of Agriculture's estimates on the blueberry bushes of Grouse Mountain. I've never felt I was equipped to speak in agriculture, but I do want to make just this one comment, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this motion.

I remember very well several years ago a similar motion to reduce the estimates of the former Minister of Education to $1.49. That particular debate was a personal attack on a Minister who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people in the House, was not performing well as a Minister of his department.

In this case, I feel this motion is a personal attack on the Minister. I think we should rather be debating the Minister's policies. If we want to disagree with his policies, let us say so. If we want to disagree with a bill which he has brought in and which we cannot debate now, let's debate that when we get to that bill. In the meantime, this party will oppose the motion.

MR, CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, I'd like to make a couple of things clear in speaking to the motion.

There is no personal attack intended here. I understand that in parliamentary government, this is the traditional and appropriate manner in which one expresses disapproval with the manner in which a Minister is conducting the affairs of his department. Certainly, I stand with no malice towards the Minister as an individual. Therefore I refute absolutely and totally the suggestion that it is a personal attack.

I would also like to make it clear for a couple of Members who felt compelled to refer to the profession of my colleague. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a farmer. I also don't know too much about farming. But I do know that a number of my constituents in an urban, rural and Gulf island setting, are vitally concerned about farming in 1973 and its short and long term future. They have expressed to me and to others in our party the concern which is embodied in the motion before the House now.

Incidentally, we also don't have expensive research assistants to feed us data and statistical material in order to quote in rather long, long speeches. But I have to say that in my view and in the view of this party, many of the small farmers in a constituency such as Saanich and the Islands and in other constituencies around this province, within the last several months, were looking for a new deal from the new Minister of Agriculture and this new Government — looking for an expression of greater concern for the many problems they face, some of them man-made and some of them natural in origin.

They were hoping — and I'm sure a number of them voted for the Government party last August 30 in an embodiment of that hope — they were hoping that this would be the end of ignoring their problems and their plights, as has been the case through a number of years, and that there would be quick and decisive moves to assist them.

If I could be parochial for just a moment, I would like to refer to the concern in my own riding on the part of small farmers — poultry men, dairy men, berry farmers — who really have to fight a fantastic battle from the mainland; who turn to a number of us in local government — and are now turning to me in provincial government — and saying, "What can be

[ Page 910 ]

done to help us?"

The amount of milk that is being shipped in daily, particularly into supermarkets, in the metropolitan Victoria area from the lower mainland is of concern to them. They're producing milk up and down Vancouver Island and throughout the Saanich Peninsula and they're fighting what I would think is a losing battle.

I would suggest that incorporated in the motion that has been placed before you, Mr. Chairman, is the earnest desire that the Minister would have recognized matters of this kind and would have moved decisively to assist. Therefore, whether we are supported by other Members of the Opposition or whether we stand alone as a very small party, we stand by the position just taken.

We reiterate that this is not a personal attack. There's no suggestion of that incorporated in the motion, but we are extremely concerned about the leadership being shown, or lack thereof, by the present Minister of Agriculture, in matters affecting the farmers of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly encouraging to see Members from the old-line party waking up and having a little interest in the farmers. I was born on a farm, raised on a farm and have spent a good deal of my time on a farm since that time.

In the past I haven't seen this concern shown. These parties have been in power in Ottawa. I would say that the policy that was affecting farmers in this province mainly came from Ottawa. To hear the motion presented by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) almost makes me laugh.

It reminds me of a little story I heard about the two Conservatives who were in a hotel room. One of them leaped out of the window and killed himself. At the inquest the magistrate was asking, "How did it happen?" The surviving Conservative said, "My partner jumped up out of bed, leaped onto the windowsill and said, 'I think I'll fly around for a while.' " The magistrate said, "Why didn't you try to stop him?" He said, "To tell you the truth, at the moment I thought he could fly."

I think this is the type of step the Conservatives are taking at this time. They're trying to get off the ground. I don't know how they're going to make it.

I have every confidence in the present Minister of Agriculture. I know he's a good man but he's not going to undo all the wrongs in five months that were done in 50 years. During the past the type of thing that was encouraged throughout the province was the phasing out of agriculture. The past Premier of the Socred government told farmers in my own riding,

"I've given up on agriculture. There's more money in subdividing land."

MRS. JORDAN: Is that a quote?

MR. LEWIS: That's a quote. That's true. I wouldn't lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. LEWIS: Tomato canneries have been shut down through this province in areas where the farmers could have done quite well. The Ashcroft area, the Lillooet area and many other areas of the province have suffered due to this type of policy in the past. I say that this Minister of Agriculture is going to take steps to see that this type of thing is rectified, but give him a little bit of time.

I think you've all heard about the Armstrong celery. It was known throughout the country as some of the best celery raised anywhere in North America. But due to the policy of past governments, this industry has gone dead. I say that this Minister will bring this industry back to life.

When the Conservative government is in a position to take over in Ottawa, I hope that they'll stop and listen to our brave Members from B.C. here, and maybe we'll have a very good industry up there if they can carry through to Ottawa. But until that time I don't think they should be in a position to pass a motion to reduce our Minister of Agriculture's salary here in the Province of British Columbia when he's doing everything to rectify many of the mistakes that they made. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that it's not the intention of this group over here to deny the family of the Minister of Labour…er, Minister of Agriculture. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Freudian slip.

MR. CHABOT:…. no intention there to deny the Minister of Agriculture's family the right to survive by reducing his salary to $1.

On listening to the Member who moved this amendment, I don't really believe that he raised one single issue in his talk that would justify the type of drastic measure which he has proposed today. Certainly there are issues, and there is legislation in this House today that we will violently oppose, but we're not going to stand here and oppose, the Minister's salary. The Minister has not had sufficient

[ Page 911 ]

time to indicate to us whether he is doing a good job or a bad job.

MR. WALLACE: You wouldn't say that about the Premier.

MR. CHABOT: No, we of this group, Mr. Chairman, consider the issues raised prior to the moving of the amendment as frivolous and we will not support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't just let this amendment go without saying a few words. I've known that particular Minister for a long, long time, and of all Ministers, Mr. Chairman, the manner in which that Minister has been conducting the business of his department has made us all proud, Mr. Chairman. He has worked like no other Minister in this House, as hard as most of us and harder than many. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I work very hard.

Mr., Chairman, the fact of the matter is this Minister didn't inspire that kind of a resolution. It's a motion, it's a veiled cry from the Howe Street farmers; that's precisely what it is. It's a veiled cry from the land sharks of British Columbia and the speculators. Mr. Chairman, I feel that it's quite unwarranted.

Mr. Chairman, it's unworthy. And the thing that really, really disturbs me is the fact that the Member for Oak Bay made this resolution, and I'm quite sure that he didn't want to. I'm quite sure that he knows perfectly well having sat in this House for the past few weeks, that what he did was a shameful insult to the Minister of Agriculture.

No Minister in this House has ever had to face this kind of a resolution after six months of activity — and continuous activity.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Conservative Members across the floor that they take a second look at the directions that they're getting because those directions are not aimed at this Minister. Those directions are aimed for the aggrandizement of somebody out there somewhere who is calling the shots.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I were afraid that I would be further behind by not carrying on I suppose I would quit while I was ahead. I'm assuming that I am ahead right now and certainly the indications I've had so far would indicate that.

I've had a note sent to me by a previous Minister of Agriculture in the House, and I don't think you have to look very far to know where that would come from. But he says, "Welcome to the club. I think this completes the list of Ministers of agriculture who have had similar motions moved against them at one time or another."

I think perhaps, as the Hon. Minister of Health Hon. Mr. Cocke) has suggested, I've maybe arrived sooner than the rest. I was perhaps more efficient in that way.

I welcome the words of support from my own group naturally, particularly when the backbenchers get into it. You know, they might be standing in line waiting for such an opening because, certainly if my salary were reduced, Mr. Member, to a dollar, then there would be an opening. There would have to be.

I'm a little bit more concerned about some of the other support though. For example, I think that before the debate on my salary is over, I may have cause to believe that an attack from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will be more welcome than support from the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). But we'll see as time goes on.

I agree with the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party —I've just forgotten which one it was now; I know who it was, but I can't think of the name of the riding — who said that as far as he is concerned it is a personal attack and he had no wish to participate in a personal attack.

I don't really take it that way. I think there is some fairly widespread concern in the province about the direction that the department is taking in a couple of specific instances, I suppose — perhaps one in particular. I think one way of emphasizing this is the method they have chosen — not one I'm going to support, naturally enough. But I think it is one way of measuring the opinion of the House as to the direction that the Department of Agriculture is taking. As I say, not a way that I would support but, nevertheless, a way of doing it. I take it in that light.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) says also that he does not consider it in any way a personal attack but is questioning the policies of the Department of Agriculture. However, the fact that it is directed against my salary does indicate to some extent that it's questioning my conduct as the Minister of Agriculture. As Minister of Agriculture, I've had a lot to learn. Although I had some previous experience farming, had some previous experience in obtaining a degree in agriculture at university, there was still a tremendous amount to learn when I walked into my office.

Also, there was the fact, I suppose, that the Deputy of the previous Minister had passed away not long before I walked into office. Now I'm not suggesting that the new man is not measuring up very

[ Page 912 ]

well and that the organization is not working out very well, but nevertheless, there was the combination of circumstances: the fact that I was completely new, the fact that the new Deputy was walking into a new situation.

However, in my five months in office — and I am talking now about my personal activities if you like — I've made it my business to get around as much as I possibly could in the farming community. I've travelled not all over the province, but quite extensively in the province meeting the farmers, meeting the farm organizations. I've addressed several meetings of farmer organizations where they have said that it is the first time in the history of that particular organization where they have had the opportunity of meeting a Minister of Agriculture at those particular meetings.

Now, priorities change. The situation is different, and I'm not criticizing anyone when I say that. I'm simply saying that I have done my level best to live up to what I believe are the commitments of my office, to get out to meet the farmers, the agricultural organizations and to listen.

In spite of the feeling that may be somewhat prevalent in the community and may prevail to some extent in this House, I have been listening as I have been travelling. It's not just a matter of travelling; these people have been coming to my office. I have been meeting with them, discussing with them, and continually trying to learn something about the job that has been thrust on me; trying to learn something about it so that I can do a better job of doing it.

I'm not displeased that the motion is moved this year because it is my hope that after another year in office as Minister of Agriculture, no one on the other side of the House would dream of moving such a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is: Moved that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture be reduced from $24,000 to $1. Amendment to vote 3. You have heard the amendment; we are now voting on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

NAYS — 47

PAIR:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the division that just took place, on Vote 3, I ask permission of the House that this vote be recorded in the Journals and reported to the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon Minister of Agriculture on vote 3.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay raised some points that I'd like to comment on at this point. First, he expressed some surprise and I think perhaps we all are surprised, but we're pleased that this situation does exist now, that the official Opposition Members are talking about planning and they are at odds with the previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he said that we don't need real farmers. I just hope that that expression of opinion is still there when the previous Premier returns to his seat. You know the old saying about, "When the cat's away the mice will play"? Well, we'll see what happens when he comes back.

The importance of agriculture. Now this is not something new. Everyone has commented on the importance of agriculture in our community, the fact that we should produce here, increase our production here rather than import, to the extent that we are able to do so. I am pleased that this is the second of the Opposition parties which, in saying that, has indicated that it intends to support a programme to preserve agricultural land — if I can mention that much of it.

The net income for farmers. We're all concerned about that. It's not saying anything of any importance to say that B.C. is better than most provinces in this regard. That's not nearly good enough, to say that you're better than everybody else when everybody else is far too low.

I can only say that certainly we're going to do

[ Page 913 ]

everything we can to improve that situation and we expect to get some good advice from the Members opposite during this course of this and other debates. There will be legislation coming up. There is Opposition legislation on the order paper. All of these things I hope will contribute to an overall programme that will do something to improve the farmer's net income.

Statistics Canada presents a pretty shocking picture. On the other hand there is the definition of "farmer" that Statistics Canada uses, While the average income in 1971, as he says, is $4,680, the average does include a lot of people who don't depend upon farming as their full time occupation.

Again, I am not making excuses for the situation. I know that the net farming income is far too low and we want to do something about this.

Storage facilities. Yes. We do have extensive storage facilities in Canada. We have had previously, when we were talking about surpluses, billions of bushels stored in Canada, but essentially stored on the prairies where it was being produced. This Government would welcome any suggestion from the federal government that we cooperate in increasing the storage facilities here in British Columbia, preferably on the west coast. Also, it would relieve the problem on the national transportation system if we had increased storage facilities here on the coast, so that for either export market or for local use we would have the grain here rather than having to wait for it to be transported from the prairies where it's being produced.

The cost of irrigation. I was surprised at those figures. There are explanations I'm sure. The $30 figure in the Okanagan obviously makes it relatively uneconomic to grow fruit if you can irrigate for $2 in Washington.

I suppose this is part of the price not included in the some $500 million that we are paying because of the bad deal we made on the Columbia, but part of the price is that we are saving water and storing it for the Americans to have when they want it. Of course they use that water in part to reduce the cost of irrigation in Washington. We inherited that problem. As the Premier has indicated, we are going to try and do something about that, but I don't imagine we can close the gap from $30 to $2 for irrigation water in the fruit growing areas. We do recognize the importance of it.

Of all the commodity groups, I think the fruit farmers are the ones that are in the worst financial position. We recognize that and we intend to have some special programme to try to do something to help particularly that commodity group.

So much has been said yesterday when vote 3 was before you and again today when vote 3 is still before you about problems, and everyone recognizes the importance and the role that the federal government has to play in doing anything about these. When we come to this question of the strawberries and what happened in the strawberry situation, again the federal government, for reasons best known to itself, chose to make it possible for strawberries to come in from Mexico to the extent that they just wiped out the strawberry production industry in British Columbia. The price last year was somewhat better but there is not much use having a good price is you don't have the production. What happened previously almost wiped out the strawberry production in the Fraser Valley.

There are other problems. There is the problem of labour. You have to bend to pick strawberries but you don't have to bend to pick raspberries. It is easier to expand our raspberry production than it is strawberries.

Again, it is the federal government that got us into that mess and I think this is part of the problem that we have had over the years, where the B.C. government wasn't really prepared to sit down and discuss things with the federal government. The B.C. government was more prepared to tell Ottawa where to get off rather than to sit down and try to negotiate things on behalf not only of the farmers in British Columbia but of the people generally.

This matter of dumping controls again is part of that. There just hasn't been that spirit of cooperation between the provincial government in British Columbia and the federal government and other provincial governments as well. Not because we had any kind of ability to see into the future in any way at all, but because we were concerned about this question of dumping and the problems that were coming up, I did send a letter to the Ministers of Agriculture in the three prairie provinces some 10 days ago, before there was ever any suggestion that Ottawa was going to go the route it went. I urged them to join with us in making representations to Ottawa to try to do something about this very problem of trying to make it possible for our own agricultural industry to expand and not to have the ground cut out from under it by imports coming in at artificially low prices.

The only response to that so far has been that the federal government has decided to go even further than it was going previously.

With regard to fertilizer, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) who is not in his seat at the moment and not officially in the House, I suppose, at the moment, tells me that this fertilizer brand that you mentioned is also produced in the States. I don't know to what extent that is true, but I guess this comes back again to the old economic argument that when you are producing something for local consumption and for export, you charge the local

[ Page 914 ]

people as much as the traffic will bear and then you sell it cheaper in the export market, in order to increase your total production in the hope of getting the average cost down.

I know it is an economic argument and it's pretty tough on the farmers locally when they pay more for this fertilizer than the same fertilizer is sold for in other jurisdictions. What we can do about that, I'm not sure. If you have some kind of an economic approach that is different from the traditional one in that respect, we might be interested in it.

The production of soya — so far they don't have the varieties, or the strains, if you like, that we can produce in this country to any extent. Some, but not much. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. Certainly we will be cooperating in research. There has been a programme announced previously of demonstration of the practical advantages or the practical output from this research. To say that we haven't the proper strains of soya yet, is not to say we won't have them in the future.

For example, corn did not used to be produced in Canada at all as a cereal crop. Now it is a major cereal crop in the Province of Ontario. It is also produced as a cereal crop in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan. Not in B.C. yet, but again, it may be some day. Maybe some day soya will be greatly expanded in production in Canada and maybe even some day in British Columbia, we don't know.

Succession duty exemption. I think there must be some misunderstanding about this in the minds, not only of Members in the House, but of the public generally as well. Right now the position with regard to farms passing directly within the family is that there is no succession duty tax levied by the provincial government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.,

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it depends upon whether it is all one parcel of land or not. If your house is sitting on a 1,000 acre farm, the whole thing is exempt. If your house is sitting on 5 acres and the other 995 is registered separately, then it is not exempt. Possibly we could look at that and do something about that, but currently the position is that the house and whatever parcel of land is around it, regardless of how large it is, is exempt from succession duties as long as it is passing within the family. Maybe we should go further.

Export possibilities. Again, that is something we will be talking about in another vote but sufficient to say at the moment that really there are only two crops that we are talking about when we are talking about increasing B.C. exports.

One of them is the tree fruits, where we have the production and we could have more production but we are having trouble breaking into markets. The one possibility seems to be Japan, but Japan raised artificial barriers by saying that they don't have coddling moths in Japan and they won't allow our apples to come in because they are afraid of the coddling moth coming in. We say maybe they don't have coddling moths but they have something else that is exactly like it and they call it something else. But they have the last word. If they aren't going to allow them in, well, they just don't get in. We are continuing that.

The other area is in breeding stock — livestock. We do have some market already. We have sent large shipments of breeding stock out of the country, and we'll be pursuing that.

The minimum wage. The Federation of Agriculture at one meeting felt that this question of the exemption from agriculture for the minimum wage really was not very important to them. They have to pay something in excess of the minimum wage to get workers that are worth hiring anyway. If they pay less than that, they're not worth having at any price. So they have to pay more than the minimum wage.

They are a bit concerned, though, about losing this exemption completely. In one sense they don't like it. It downgrades the agricultural industry wholly to say that they need a special protection although they aren't able to really use it, because they have to pay more to get good workers. On the other hand they are a bit afraid of what effect it might have on so much of the crop harvesting, which is done on a piecemeal basis, and they are a bit leery about us removing the exemption. Now, that is the position that we stand at, at the moment.

Hydroponics — I don't think we really need much in the way of encouragement. These people are expanding on their own. They are able to operate competitively to the extent that they don't really need any encouragement to go ahead.

On the other hand there is some consumer reaction against foodstuffs grown artificially like that. There are some people who feel that perhaps the proper nutrients aren't all there. There is the question of trace elements. No one really knows exactly what trace elements are needed in human nutrition. Some of this produce may be produced by that method — a very efficient way of producing it. It's not subject to the same vagaries of weather. It's so much easier to harvest, so much easier to handle in every way. Yet there are people who have this feeling against it. They question it.

There are others who like to have the field, sun-ripened produce. At the moment it is particularly applicable as well without any government financial assistance and we have no major factor in agriculture at this time. They are getting along very well without any government financial assistance and we have no plans for doing anything at the present time.

The Peace River was discussed previously. There

[ Page 915 ]

are a couple of new points that you raised — the question of a moratorium, the question of machinery losses and the question of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. DREE for some time and the Department of Agriculture have tried to convince the federal government that the Peace River area should be recognized under that Act. The previous administration and the current one have tried but to date the federal government just will not accept it. Now, again, like so many other things, that doesn't mean that the discussion is complete. It just means that the Department of Agriculture under the previous and the current administration have been unsuccessful in persuading the federal government to go that route.

The moratorium. The National Farmers Union were down about a week ago and one of the points they raised was a moratorium on farm debts. I have some personal concern about this. I am concerned that it might have the wrong effect in that it might hurt the opportunities for the people up there to get credit. The spokesman for the National Farmers Union one of them at least, discounted that and said that it doesn't really have that effect. Another one of the spokesmen wasn't all that sure in his own mind. When they left my office they were going to discuss it with other members of the NDP caucus agricultural committee.

Again, it's one of things that I just haven't had an opportunity to find out from them as to what conclusion was arrived at, if any. I have had no feedback to the effect that we should try to introduce legislation in a hurry that would set up some kind of a moratorium. Now that may be coming, I'm not sure yet.

The machinery losses is something like this question of the freight assistance for forage. There was so much need for it until we put the programme in, and then very little need. We have tried to keep track of this business of people losing machinery and some, indeed, have lost machinery. However, as near as we can find out, the losses this year are not any more than they had been in any previous year.

We have looked at every single case that has been brought to our attention. We have checked them and have found out, in one case — I'm not going to name names on the floor of the House — but in one case I'm thinking of a person bought equipment to be paid off over a three-year period. He bought it in 1961 and finally this year, 1973 …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The one I'm thinking of is 1961…on a three-year programme, and still owed something on that equipment in 1973. Now there are all sorts of examples and the ones that we've checked up on would seem that the creditors were justified intaking the action that they did because of the record. One particular fellow that I talked to, who was on the verge of losing his equipment, said that if he just had a bit of time he knew he could go to his bank and arrange it. We made a point of contacting his bank and they said that their experience with this particular borrower would not encourage them to lend him any money at all. So we try to check by going to both sides.

We've heard from many people in the Peace River, from some of our own department people, from other people on behalf of individuals and from some of the Members of the House on behalf of individuals. The thing that we've found out in so many instances, and I am sure those of you who are MLA's in dealing with constituency problems or problems of constituents, often found out, that when you got the story from your constituent, it was only part of the story. When you got the rest of the story, the constituent might be quite justified in raising the complaint that he did. But often the government department, whichever one it was dealing with it, had a good case to present as well.

In the examples, the instances, the cases that we've looked into we have come to the conclusion that…a couple of them we have stopped, just two, I think. In the others we just felt that, in view of the complete story as we were able to assemble it from all points of view, there really wasn't anything that the government could or should do in those instances.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. There are a couple of questions I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. One problem that we have, Mr. Minister — I raised it, I can't remember whether it was in my budget speech or in the throne speech — was the problem of wolves in the Peace River area, the problem of wolves on Cortes Island, the problem of wolves in the Omineca riding and I know they're having problems with wolves in the Cariboo. I can't seem to get any satisfaction out of the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

This is a pressing problem. I realize that there are conservationists in the area who want to preserve these wolves. But I still don't think that the farmers who raise livestock or lambs or what have you should be subsidizing the wolf population in this province.

The other thing, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, is that you will have the opportunity very shortly to make a statement to DREE. The latest information I have is that they're coming out from Ottawa. I know that the Premier spoke on this yesterday and said that he would support it. They are coming out from Ottawa. They're going to be asking this province to

[ Page 916 ]

designate two areas. I'm certainly pleased to hear that we have support from the Minister of Agriculture and that we have support from the Premier.

The Minister of Agriculture has stepped out of the House for a moment. I don't wonder, after what he went through. I've never seen such an exercise in futility in my life. I was accused the other night of delaying tactics in the House, Ms. Chairwoman, but certainly I always try to be constructive and I certainly always do my homework.

However, the Premier is here. We've been talking this afternoon at quite some length about world food markets and about selling our agricultural products on the world food market. I'm glad the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is in the House because I would recommend, Ms. Chairwoman, that our Minister of Agriculture prepare now for trade talks that are coming up next September.

Agricultural production policy should be part of any programme for the removal of agricultural trade impediments negotiated in the coming general agreement on tariffs and trade discussions, a senior federal official believes. Now this is bringing agriculture into the federal area, which has been discussed here this afternoon. James F. Dundee, Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade, and Commerce said, "Agricultural production policies are central to the difficulties encountered in agricultural trade."

So I would recommend that our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) either attend these negotiation sessions next September or at least send somebody who can negotiate on his behalf. Maybe in this way we can make a step forward toward the world food bank that I was talking about last night.

I realize that the trade negotiations are a ticklish matter. But if they are successful, the negotiations should produce opportunities not only for expanded export sales in products where Canada has a proven competitive advantage, but also for new sales in products where upgrading and diversification will open new markets.

I think it's very important — I'm talking along the same lines as I was last night and I'd like to have the Minister's reaction to this — I would like to see, Ms. Chairwoman, our Minister of Agriculture, if at all possible through negotiations with the federal government, attend these negotiations that are coming up next September. The tariffs and trades on agriculture products will be one of the main things that will be discussed at this upcoming conference.

I'd also like the Minister of Agriculture to comment on what he feels about the farmers' union having bargaining rights for all the farmers in this province. Ms. Chairwoman, does the Minister of Agriculture think that collective bargaining through the farmers' union is going to solve, or is a better method of solving, the problems of agriculture than he in his department through new methods will have?

This is very important, because in Quebec just recently the Quebec farmers voted on paying union dues, some 51,000 of them. They set out and they have agreed that there should be one spokesman. One of the things that they're not very happy with in Quebec, of course, is that they have to pay what they call "very high rates" for western prairie grain.

Now if we're going to have a truly national farmers' union, a farmers' union that is going to talk for all farmers in Canada — and that is the objective of the farmers' union — I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he feels the present formula for setting up the farmers' union is going to be large enough and powerful enough to bring the different segments of farming in Canada together.

Right here in British Columbia we have livestock men who at the best of times are not always on too friendly a basis with those raising grain. I fail to see, unless the Minister — can comment on this, how one voice for all the farming communities is going to do it. I can see a farmers' union for instance bargaining collectively for the grain farmer. I can see another group of farmers' unions bargaining collectively for the livestock industry. I could go on and say the poultry industry, the vegetable growers, et cetera. But is there ever going to come a day when all — and I'm not going to call them farmers; I'm going to call them all food producers — are all of them going to be able to sit down together and work together?

Here in British Columbia alone, Ms. Chairwoman, we probably have more diversification in agriculture than any other province in Canada. You can start right in the Peace River area where there is grain growing; and there is not any great amount of grain growing in the rest of the provinces. Of course this is due to the climatic and geographic characteristics in the province, which allow for a complete variety of products.

I think probably with proper planning, Ms. Chairwoman, British Columbia could be self-sustaining in food products and offer a wide and varied diet without going to the outside for imports — with the exception of possibly coffee, tea and some of the spices. This is something to bear in mind.

Due to the fact that we do have all this diversification in the Department of Agriculture you've probably got to have more specialists in more varied fields than in any other department of agriculture in Canada. I think this presents a problem. I think that it is time that we recognized this in British Columbia and that we recognize it with more money in the pot for our Department of Agriculture.

When you have cattle, grain, lambs, pigs, grass seed, vegetables in the Peace River area, let alone the forage crops which produce and could be productive of one of the greatest honey industries in Canada, when you try just in that area alone to have various

[ Page 917 ]

sections in your Department of Agriculture for all of these with proper staff, I don't think we're agriculture for all of these with proper staff, I don't think we're doing it on our present budget.

Then you go down into the Bulkley Valley, which could have a similar variety and, Ms. Chairwoman, in the Cariboo, with their cattle industry. There's certainly lots of opportunity in the Cariboo for further diversification.

I haven't even mentioned, as I did last night, Ms. Chairwoman, that I still feel that since fish are a food product they should certainly be either correlated with the Department of Agriculture or somehow worked in, with the Department of Agriculture having a division of it. Because you are bringing in the harvest of our oceans.

Then in the Okanagan, with the fruit industry — which alone is a specialized industry and a very large one — you can't handle it and you can't do proper justice to it with what we have in the present budget. The berry and dairy industries of the lower mainland and the poultry industry of the lower mainland — even when you get into the poultry industry, the problems of raising poultry in the lower mainland are not the same as the ones in the Peace River area — should the poultry industry flourish there, which it could very well do because of the price of natural gas.

Does the Minister feel that his budget and his department are sufficient to do justice to all of the varieties of foodstuffs that are presently raised in the Province of British Columbia? Does the Minister feel, Ms. Chairwoman, that the promotion of B.C. products as it was handled last year had a beneficial effect?

I notice that there is $200,000 back in the budget this year again, under "special services" in his vote, for the promotion and merchandising of foodstuffs. Is this enough? Are you going to be able to hire sufficient staff — and I'm talking about good salesmen, good public relations men — to handle all of the variety of products that are raised here in British Columbia and do a good job on it?

Is the promotion this year, Ms. Chairwoman and Mr. Minister of Agriculture, going to follow along the same lines as it did last year, with breakfasts and bringing in the managers of the retail chain stores? I would like to know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, because I think this is a very important aspect of our agricultural industry. If you feel it was a success last year, what are your intentions on following it through this year?

I want to get back for just a moment, Ms. Chairwoman, to ask this of the Minister of Agriculture. He says that he has handled some problems where implements were going to be repossessed. I have forwarded him several letters that I have received from people in my area who are facing a very disastrous financial crisis. Is the Minister going to be able to do anything for these people? I forwarded to the Minister, I think it was two or three more letters today, outlining these problems.

These people who have taken the time to write these letters have, in the main, outlined their financial status, have bared their hearts, and told us exactly what they've received for some years in the past, what financial obligations they have, what they will require in the way of financial resources in order to start up their spring operation. I would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture if he is going to carry through with the last talk we had; whether he's going to be able to take some of these cases to cabinet and have a look at them.

Otherwise, some of these farmers who have taken the time to write these letters are going to be complete financial disasters. They're going to be wiped out. All due to economics of the time — nothing of their making — and also due to the climatic conditions of the last several years in our area. I would like the Minister to comment on that if he would.

There's one other thing that I'd like the Minister to comment on if he would. There's been a lot of talk about the price of beef in the province recently. Our Premier went out and suggested that housewives should boycott beef products because of the price, which I don't think was in very good taste. If the Premier had been a bull shipper, he wouldn't have said that, I'm sure.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to talk about that, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. Local 212 is the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union. I think that they probably have the highest rate of pay in North America. The only higher may be in Seattle. They've just completed an agreement and I haven't got the information as to what they settled for at the present time. Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not against the meat cutters having the best wages in North America.

As a matter of fact, I'm for higher wages in all segments. I like people to take part and enjoy the good life that we have here in British Columbia. However, I think that all segments of our society should be able to enjoy that good life. I include in that the farmers who are in the livestock industry.

The journeyman meat cutter gets $5.55 an hour. He's on the Johnson day-off system, which increases his wages. He gets two days off every week and every fourth week he has an extra day, which increases his salary further. That's a good salary and I've nothing against that. The reason I'm bringing this up, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, is because there has been so much said recently — not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada — about the high price

[ Page 918 ]

of farm products and about the rip-off from the corporations and companies who are processing these products. This is the reason I'm bringing this up.

I would like to just compare the wages the meat cutter gets as compared to the man who raises the livestock — the man who has to go out at 5 o'clock in the morning when the wind is blowing and it's chilly, go out in the swamp and help a cow calve; who works 24 hours a day and is really never free from his family of cattle; who gambles and takes all the chances against the weather; who also — maybe it hasn't been that much of a gamble now, but as I pointed out last night it could be a gamble — gambles on the prices; and the return he gets for his hours of labour.

I'm not going into all of the details that I could go into on this particular person who raises livestock. I could go on for half an hour and talk about the gambles he takes and problems he has with land. The environmentalist people are after him now because where there are feedlots, effluent is running into the rivers. He has all kinds of problems.

His return is much less than the $5.55 that our meat cutters are getting. As I say, I'm not against the meat cutters. What does the Minister of Agriculture feel about this? How are we going to get the proper return to these people who raise the beef in the first place?

There's been some talk about veterinary labs, Mr. Minister. If the livestock industry in British Columbia is to grow, I think we should have veterinary clinics, how ever you want to establish them. I don't care. Certainly there should be one established in the Cariboo. There should be one established in the south Peace. In the south Peace it could be very well established at the vocational farm or at the vocational school, where the additional costs of facilities would not be that great.

. Also in that Peace River area we should have a pathology lab. I know that pathology labs involve a large expenditure of money. But if we're going to devote the attention that I think you want to devote to this very important industry called agriculture, these are some of the services that I was talking about the other night that we shouldn't hesitate about providing. We should just go out and provide them. There shouldn't be any argument. If it's recognized that they're needed, then we should go ahead and put them in.

I can also refer to a soil-testing facility, which we've been asking for in our area for quite some time. It doesn't involve that large an amount of expenditure of money. If we're going to help these industries and these services are needed and it is recognized by the Minister that they are needed, then I say we should proceed immediately and put them in. I would like the Minister, if he would, to comment.

I guess I shouldn't belabour the point, but the Minister has said that he is for removing educational tax and all taxes from farmland — that it's just a matter of time. Well, I see that he's changed his tune from when he talked in the throne speech debate. I may have some supplementary questions, Mr. Minister, but I would appreciate your answering these points at this time.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Ms. Chairwoman, I haven't changed my position on the education tax. I'm still not convinced that it's going to help the farmer all that much. My feeling is that the removal of this particular cost will likely be passed on to the consumer, rather than end up in the hands of the producer. However, I know the producers feel differently and I know that they would be pleased if this were done. I intend to pursue that in discussions within the party and within the cabinet when the opportunity presents itself.

As far as the vet lab is concerned, I think perhaps you will agree that while this may be something for the future, it's not really something of immediate interest. With a total population of some 30,000 animals in the whole Peace River area, it doesn't justify a lab as such. A clinic — well, as you say, I did speak earlier about the plans we have for helping to financially establish a vet — not so much to establish him; he's there now — but to keep him there and make sure that the service will be continually available. We've discussed that.

There is, of course, the old programme — the new Veterinary Assistance Programme — $4,000 a year to enable vets to get established in areas — will be continued. There may be some changes in it but for the present we will be continuing that programme.

The price of beef: I didn't hear the Premier make the statement that he is reputed to have said. I did hear him criticized for it by someone who said, on a little closer cross-examination, "Well, the Premier did say in his remarks that it wasn't the producer who was getting too much for the beef but that the in-between organization…. .", whatever it was. I believe that there was some suggestion that some were profiteering on it.

I think there was no suggestion in his remarks that the producers were getting too much; nor indeed any suggestion that they were getting enough; but that the difference in spread between what the producer got and what the consumer paid was too much.

The Member opposite didn't say that it's because the meat cutters are getting too much and I won't say that either. I will say that the emphasis has to be as he has suggested — not what's happening in between or what the consumer is paying, really, but how do we get more money into the hands of the producer.

My experience with consumers, and I'd like to think that this is everybody's experience, is that consumers are not really thinking that the farmers are

[ Page 919 ]

getting too much; and that really the consumers as a group are ready to accept the idea that farmers should get more.

They are concerned about the high prices they are paying for food. But generally, if the cost of food is going up and if it can be shown to them that the major portion of the increase is going to the farmers, then they accept it with little question. But I think that has to be explained to them.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

I think with the rising — call it inflation if you like — with the improvement in other earning categories, people are ready to pay more for food, but they like to know that what they are paying is being paid out in proper proportion to the producer. I think this is the job of education — and of course in making sure that we are right in saying that in the first place.

For example, the increase in the cost of milk. The January increase of one cent I'm told went almost entirely to the producer. The recent increase that has started and is not complete yet — that has been put on by some dairies, one at least; there may be others that are talking about it still — that roughly half of that is going to the producer. The rest is going to cover the increasing costs of the dairies.

I think the consumers will accept the fact that producers need more. But they want to make sure that the farmers are getting it.

The Peace River situation: the list of names that you gave me; some of them had already been investigated and the feeling in the department was that nothing more could be done in those cases. In other cases the seizure of the equipment had actually been stopped. Two of them I think are still being investigated, in that the individuals on your list have been written to asking for more details so that we can approach the creditors involved and then get into more meaningful discussion. The letters that you say you sent me today I haven't seen yet and I don't expect I will tonight.

Promote B.C. products: I would prefer, as I have said to other that have raised this, that you deal with it under vote 6.

Fish: promote B.C. products marketing — vote 6.

You talked about including commercial fisheries in the Department of Agriculture. I think you were the one that raised that yesterday. I have said that we're looking at changes in responsibilities. Whether this one itself will come about I don't know. We'll see what happens.

The amount of the budget: as I've said before, I'm new here too. One of the problems in previous years has not been just that the budget for agriculture has been too small, but also that in many areas it wasn't even spent. I propose certainly that the nominal increase that we've had this year will be spent — not just the increase but the total amount.

Whether we'll be able to reach the target in ARDA this year, I don't know. But I would like to think that the amount that is provided this year in estimates, assuming that we do vote for it some time in this session, that the amount that is provided by this House will indeed be spent and that in the year ahead I'll have some opportunity to examine old programmes, bring in new ones, perhaps, and that next year there will be a substantial increase in the budget for agriculture.

The Geneva agreement in tariff and trade: there was a meeting of the four western provinces. They came to a joint position on a submission that they felt the federal government should make on this Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade.

Not by coincidence, but because B.C. had contributed so much to it, the joint position arrived at by the four western provinces was almost word for word the submission that was made by B.C. We're working on it. We will continue to meet with all of these national conferences. Any opportunity that we have to send our staff to conferences like that we certainly will pursue them.

The DREE discussions we'll go on with.

The wolves: I'd like to do something about the wolves. You're approaching the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) on this. You haven't gotten very far. The wolves were here last year as well — now that's no answer. I know we've got to do something about them.

I, too, have been approaching the Minister and the Minister just hasn't had the opportunity to deal with this question yet. I hope we will come up with some kind of a programme — not just for wolves but all cases like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: The wolves were here last year and they've grown and prospered under your government. But the problem with the wolves, as I said before, is not with the Minister; it's with the biologists and you've got the same biologists. There's where the problem is.

Now you said that a pathology lab was not justified with 30,000 cattle, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. There lies a philosophy and a problem. If we're going to increase and keep our herds healthy in that area, there's no way we're going to be using the facilities at Abbotsford. I say let's go ahead and say that the cattle industry is going to increase and put the pathology lab in now, so that when the herd does increase it'll be healthy and we'll know of the diseases and the problems as they arise.

You said your Premier didn't say to boycott beef. Well, I didn't hear our previous Premier (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 920 ]

Bennett) say that we didn't need farmers. I think it's a stupid, idiotic political statement that's been used in this House before. I disagree with it and I don't think it should be used again. But I'll have to just consider where it came from.

One other thing, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that I forgot to ask you. Are you going to do anything for the vegetable farmer at Taylor? We've skirted the problem. I brought it up before. I think they're entitled to some compensation. It's a new industry. It can be a big industry. I think they are as entitled to compensation — I won't go into it now. You know, why they are. I'd like to ask the Minister for further comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the lab is concerned, they're not without facilities entirely. Within 60 miles there is a satellite lab, at least, at Fairview. Now I stand by what I said, that with the present population it just doesn't justify laboratory facilities in that area. Beyond that there is, of course, the possibility of airplane service to our own lab, which is better than the satellite lab.

The wolves: yes, okay. Let's go after the Minister together and see if we can't do something about the wolves.

What was the other point that you …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Taylor. Yes. I announced previously …

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, okay. You had your chance at him. You've got your chance at me now. As far as the Peace River is concerned, the grain programme was a programme that was instituted not because they lost a crop for one year, not because they lost a part of their crop, but because they lost the whole of their crop this year and a significant proportion of their crop for several years. So even those with crop insurance were still suffering.

As far as the Taylor situation is concerned, it's the first year that they have lost their crop. Secondly, my information is that they did not lose their entire crop in that the root crops were still harvested. So the degree of the loss and the long term nature of the loss is not nearly so important with the Taylor vegetable situation as it was with the grain situation.

I think they're entirely different problems and I don't think that you can relate the Taylor situation to anything else that happened in the province and say that we did something for one and not for another.

Our position with respect to the Taylor situation is as it was and that is: no help at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question of recording in, the Journals, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the following reports: Annual report of the Director of Corrections for the year ended March 31, 1972, manuscript only.

Fiftieth annual report of the Fire Marshal for the year ended December 31, 1971, Sixty-first annual report of the Superintendent of Insurance for the year ended December 31, 1971, manuscript.

First annual report for the period ended December 31, 1972, Criminal Injuries Compensation Acts of British Columbia, printed.

Third annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for the year ended December 31, 1972, manuscript.

Law Reform Commission report on Debtor Creditor Relationships, Part II.

The Mechanics Lien Act, Improvements on Land, printed.

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia report on Debtor-Creditor Relationships, Part III, Deficiency Claims and Repossessions, printed.

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia report on Civil Rights, Part I, Legal Position of the Crown, manuscript.

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia interim report on Law of Evidence, manuscript, Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5: 55 p.m.